Found Deceased Canada - Nick Lush, 32, Calgary, 29 March 2015 *Arrests*

[news.talk]

I don't know.. they find bodies every day it seems, but I think it is odd to hear that after only 8 days, they had to 'compare' dental and fingerprint records, which would suggest that one or the other wasn't good enough in itself, and ME took 2 days to ID the body. I'm getting the impression something really horrific (ie more horrific than other murders) was done to this man. MOO

One to two days is about average. I suspect they held off announcing the news until all family was informed. They likely did the autopsy yesterday and waited until this morning to release the information.

 

[deugirtni]

In one of the posts upthread, a link provided led me to another story.. interesting how in this other story, when the victim was shot to death and was known to police, it is reported like this, as opposed to stating exact charges, and making calls on whether the past was 'lengthy' in the news reporter's opinion, etc.:

The 27-year-old was a member of the local Sudanese community and known to police. Acting Police Chief Brian Simpson won’t say whether the shooting was gang or drug related, but noted the victim’s family is relieved charges have now been laid.
http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/03/30/edmonton-man-charged-in-two-separate-homicide-investigations

 

[Sillybilly]

Sincere condolences and thoughts to Nick's family and friends, all who loved this young man.

Rest in Peace, Nick Lush
:rose: :rose: :rose:

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I'm a little surprised.. today, even after body has now been found and in such a state, the fund has only grown by $625 since your post more than 24 hours ago. Although.... not really all that surprised considering the media is really playing the fact that the victim has a 'lengthy criminal past including weapons and assault charges', and so people seem to be doing as expected and passing judgement and have obviously already started slowing their support of his family.

Fund is now at $8,625.

I think people are allowed to use that information in determining whether to give money or not. There is no "I want my money back" button after something incriminating comes to light, or if you find out the fundraiser has more in the bank than you do.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

In one of the posts upthread, a link provided led me to another story.. interesting how in this other story, when the victim was shot to death and was known to police, it is reported like this, as opposed to stating exact charges, and making calls on whether the past was 'lengthy' in the news reporter's opinion, etc.:

"Known to police" doesn't necessarily mean charged or convicted of anything. It can simply mean LE has had interactions with this person previously.

As well, at the time of the report, the writer may not have had the court records in their possession, and had to rely on a quote from LE. Regardless of the detail, the history of the person was still shared... rightfully so.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I find it strange how the blind defence of certain people, in certain cases, always seems to emerge when there are significant events.

Poor JB's wife went missing... would anyone donate to his fundraiser to cover costs and lost income? What about the father of JRN's child? That child is now Motherless.

So someone with a criminal past, dies in a criminal manner... therefore, the criminal past is suddenly off limits to the public? It will hurt the family? The family is already fully aware of their family member's history. They are family. The timing is wrong? No. Especially if there is profiting from the event, then a full history is necessary, preferably from the family themselves.

NL's three children have my every sympathy, and I would be tempted to donate to a trust fund.

The online random fund in these sorts of circumstances is dodgy at best. The fundraiser themselves can have all sorts of money, ill gotten gains, or even be involved in the murder or disappearance.

It is a strange phenomena, this need to co-grieve, and to lash out at any suggestion that the victim isn't the purest saint that ever lived.

 

[deugirtni]

I agree, people are certainly allowed to use whatever information they want and have at their disposal to make such determinations for themselves. I am just personally, a little disappointed that it seems people may be giving this family less than another family, due to a past that we have no details about, could be historical, could be minimal, could be anything, and in any case, it is disappointing to me, imopo (in my own personal opinion), that people would judge the kids and wife and deem them less worthy. Imho the wife doesn't look the part of the usual quasi-criminal, drug-couple, she looks clean and bright and happy, and the children look well cared for. Perhaps her only mistake was loving her husband and sticking with him. (Is this like... 'the sins of the father will be visited upon the children' type of deal? Just sucks.. MOO)

I think people are allowed to use that information in determining whether to give money or not. There is no "I want my money back" button after something incriminating comes to light, or if you find out the fundraiser has more in the bank than you do.

 

[deugirtni]

This is a really large discussion because there are so many points in there to discuss, so I deleted my responses, and I'll just say that nobody said it was off limits to publish the facts, only that the timing of the information seemed a little unfair, even by a day, and the lack of information is disappointing too, and it feels like sensationalism to me rather than helpful information.

In this case, I agree, they might do better if they set up an official trust fund overseen by a bank or a lawyer or something, as opposed to a just-anything-goes type of fundraiser. Great idea.

I find it strange how the blind defence of certain people, in certain cases, always seems to emerge when there are significant events.

Poor JB's wife went missing... would anyone donate to his fundraiser to cover costs and lost income? What about the father of JRN's child? That child is now Motherless.

So someone with a criminal past, dies in a criminal manner... therefore, the criminal past is suddenly off limits to the public? It will hurt the family? The family is already fully aware of their family member's history. They are family. The timing is wrong? No. Especially if there is profiting from the event, then a full history is necessary, preferably from the family themselves.

NL's three children have my every sympathy, and I would be tempted to donate to a trust fund.

The online random fund in these sorts of circumstances is dodgy at best. The fundraiser themselves can have all sorts of money, ill gotten gains, or even be involved in the murder or disappearance.

It is a strange phenomena, this need to co-grieve, and to lash out at any suggestion that the victim isn't the purest saint that ever lived.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I agree, people are certainly allowed to use whatever information they want and have at their disposal to make such determinations for themselves. I am just personally, a little disappointed that it seems people may be giving this family less than another family, due to a past that we have no details about, could be historical, could be minimal, could be anything, and in any case, it is disappointing to me, imopo (in my own personal opinion), that people would judge the kids and wife and deem them less worthy. Imho the wife doesn't look the part of the usual quasi-criminal, drug-couple, she looks clean and bright and happy, and the children look well cared for. Perhaps her only mistake was loving her husband and sticking with him. (Is this like... 'the sins of the father will be visited upon the children' type of deal? Just sucks.. MOO)

Then if the family wants money, they can give the public the full story. Hiding behind the "grieving" excuse is becoming a little stale. The "spokesperson" saying there are going to be things coming to light that "she doesn't know about" is excuse making at best. Remember when real reporters used to ask questions? It certainly would have been nice for that reporter to have asked, "Like what?"... instead we got the sad sensationalism.

No one wants to find out a month from now their income was solely drug based, and the cash reward was going to be from the 50,000 they had stuffed in the attic.

 

[news.talk]

Then if the family wants money, they can give the public the full story. Hiding behind the "grieving" excuse is becoming a little stale. The "spokesperson" saying there are going to be things coming to light that "she doesn't know about" is excuse making at best. Remember when real reporters used to ask questions? It certainly would have been nice for that reporter to have asked, "Like what?"... instead we got the sad sensationalism.

No one wants to find out a month from now their income was solely drug based, and the cash reward was going to be from the 50,000 they had stuffed in the attic.

I am agreeing with you again... The Reporter SHOULD have followed that question up - provide some context. If the charges were many years ago, or a history of drug use that has been since overcome, then posting the record was pointless. However, if he was involved in the sale, manufacturing or even consumption of drugs, it would be very relevant to the possible motive.

 

[debsy99]

I never give to funding accounts like that. Because absolutely anyone can set them up. I have seen cases where people start giving to one and it turns out the person who is receiving the money doesn't even know the family. Also this is what life insurance is for, to take care of the surviving spouse and children.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/275381/victims-mother-horrified-as-new-bolsa-murder-details-emerge/

Now ask yourself, do you feel the need to fundraise for any wives and children of the victims in this story? Did it even cross your mind that they may have families?

Sympathy is very selective for some reason, and there is a strange need to put blinders on, and keep truths hidden in order to maintain that grief stricken, victimization theme going.

There used to be people who would attend funerals of anyone... just to attend the funerals. There is something about the grieving process that people become addicted to... social media has opened that cycle up to a whole new audience, in a whole new way. We can see it in the lashing out, just like a drug addict or alcoholic when confronted with truths that challenge their need to feed the addiction.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I am agreeing with you again... The Reporter SHOULD have followed that question up - provide some context. If the charges were many years ago, or a history of drug use that has been since overcome, then posting the record was pointless. However, if he was involved in the sale, manufacturing or even consumption of drugs, it would be very relevant to the possible motive.

So including the record in the story is fair game. Those behind the complaints of unfairness or unethical behaviour have the opportunity to set the story straight at any time, in any number of ways... if in fact there is some sort of error. The lack of information only serves to further confirm suspicions. Without the truth, the motives behind the complaints are suspect... at best.

Were it my family member that had reformed him or herself from their past, and was an unfortunate victim of a senseless, random attack... you bet I would be in the media, even in my worst grief stricken state, clearing their character.

 

[debsy99]

It's not that I don't feel the need to give to anyone. I'm the type of person who would give someone in need everything I had. I just don't think the crowd funding is a secure way to go.

Also CB has a baby and a woman too. Who's going to help them? Reality is we can't give to every person.

I also agree that people should know the whole truth to determine if they want to give or not. And if you choose to give without knowing then that's your call too.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

There is a glaring lack of shock at the senselessness... the randomness... how could this have happened?

Is the inclusion of the criminal record in the report amateurish nonsense, or a hint by a seasoned reporter who has the inside story, but doesn't want to reveal sources publicly?

Is no one talking because they all know the motive, and know when it comes out, it won't paint anyone in a good light?

 

[debsy99]

There is a glaring lack of shock at the senselessness... the randomness... how could this have happened?

Is the inclusion of the criminal record in the report amateurish nonsense, or a hint by a seasoned reporter who has the inside story, but doesn't want to reveal sources publicly?

Is no one talking because they all know the motive, and know when it comes out, it won't paint anyone in a good light?

Most likely your last point. Although I find it odd the CPS initially said NL was not known to them. But he knew CB previously which I also find odd that they kept stating he knew no one at the party. NL would have known what CB was about and given his priors was most likely involved in something at some point. Did he deserve it though because of that? I don't think anyone deserves murder.

 

[Jester980]

https://twitter.com/otiena/status/5...803 Police identify body found in burned car

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

http://www.inews880.com/2015/04/09/30616/

Burnt out red Pontiac Gran Prix... wow that looked like a charger. Uncanny.

 

[LoisLane]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...victim-in-car-fire-west-of-edmonton-1.3026988

His name was Grant Potts and he was from the Alexis First Nation. It is considered a homicide investigation. Seems his family knew April 3rd.
https://www.facebook.com/grant.potts.3?ref=ts&fref=ts
https://www.facebook.com/laura.potts.90281?fref=ufi&pnref=story

Might be a good idea to start a thread for this.

In the Global web comments someone asks if he is related to a missing woman named Faith Potts.
http://globalnews.ca/news/1930605/man-found-dead-in-burned-out-car-in-stony-plain-identified/
http://missingpeople.ca/2015/04/missing-woman-in-edmonton-alberta-misty-faith-potts-37/

 

[LoisLane]

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/275381/victims-mother-horrified-as-new-bolsa-murder-details-emerge/

Now ask yourself, do you feel the need to fundraise for any wives and children of the victims in this story? Did it even cross your mind that they may have families?

Sympathy is very selective for some reason, and there is a strange need to put blinders on, and keep truths hidden in order to maintain that grief stricken, victimization theme going.

There used to be people who would attend funerals of anyone... just to attend the funerals. There is something about the grieving process that people become addicted to... social media has opened that cycle up to a whole new audience, in a whole new way. We can see it in the lashing out, just like a drug addict or alcoholic when confronted with truths that challenge their need to feed the addiction.

I don't think I would donate money but if I was a friend of the mother possibly I would coordinate some sort of support if it was necessary.


Off topic:
I don't understand the following paragraph where Real Honorio can only be identified as M.M. Was he not just identified as RH?

"A key witness in the persecution of Bolsa murders Nathan Zuccherato, Michael Roberto and Real Honorio who can only be identified as M.M. told RCMP last year, “I was the one that committed it. I run into Bolsa with a f—in’ nine millimeter, a .357, as well as a .45 . . . I killed them. I murdered them in cold blood.”"
http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/275381/victims-mother-horrified-as-new-bolsa-murder-details-emerge/