Canada - Terry, 27, & Hailey Blanchette, 2, Blairmore, AB, 14 Sept 2015 #2

[Snowglobe]

Well, it's already been answered. It would help if you would read previous posts or MSM/LE reports.

Please see here: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...more-AB-14-Sep-2015-2&p=12093539#post12093539

Read between the lines.

 

[Snowglobe]

In another case today, a man pleaded guilty to manslaughter and offering an indignity to a human body. He had dragged the victim's nude body under some trees in a public park. Her remains were found weeks later by a man out walking his dog.

 

[Jasper52]

Read between the lines.

"His defence team elected to have the case heard by a judge and jury, if Saretzky is deemed fit to stand trial."

What's to read???

 

[Jasper52]

In another case today, a man pleaded guilty to manslaughter and offering an indignity to a human body. He had dragged the victim's nude body under some trees in a public park. Her remains were found weeks later by a man out walking his dog.

What does that have to do with this case?

 

[KatieLiz]

In the case of Victoria Stafford, Micheal Rafferty was charged with Kidnapping, Murder One and Sexual Assault. So I would think if they can prove Hailey was taken alive from the home a kidnapping charge will also be tacked on. Perhaps this is the delay in releasing the body. MOO

Edited Sorry I missed Amis_ post where they mentioned Stafford.

Thank you! That answers my question. Thanks to Amis_ as well.

I also wonder if the delay in releasing HDB's body has to do with the condition of her. IF DS did try to dispose of her in some awful manner it would obviously take them much longer to examine and run tests. I agree that we will likely see more charges tacked on in the near future.

 

[KatieLiz]

"His defence team elected to have the case heard by a judge and jury, if Saretzky is deemed fit to stand trial."

What's to read???

JMO-- I took what Snowglobe posted as read between the lines of their earlier post when they said what strategies a lawyer would use- if they were not guilty they would choose judge only, if they were guilty it would be easier to
Convince a jury of their "insanity". Therefore knowing which selection DS has made, "read between the lines".

Hope this helps

 

[Snowglobe]

Does anyone know if Patrick Edgerton will lead the defence team for DS if this case goes to trial?

 

[Snowglobe]

I hope that the RCMP Major Crimes Unit will continue to investigate whether there are any links between Victoria Crow Shoe's murder and the CNP murders.

 

[Jasper52]

JMO-- I took what Snowglobe posted as read between the lines of their earlier post when they said what strategies a lawyer would use- if they were not guilty they would choose judge only, if they were guilty it would be easier to
Convince a jury of their "insanity". Therefore knowing which selection DS has made, "read between the lines".

Hope this helps

I understand what you're saying but DS's lawyer had already stated they elected trial by judge and jury before Snowglobe posted his/her post.

 

[blacksheep]

Does anyone know if Patrick Edgerton will lead the defence team for DS if this case goes to trial?

Patrick Edgerton works with Peter Northcott who was hired to represent DS. A case such as this usually has team of criminal lawyers. Patrick is probably an associate representing Peter's team at this point.

 

[Snowglobe]

First-degree murder charges place a much higher burden of proof on prosecutors than lesser charges. This can be a defence lawyer's genie in a bottle, IMO. It would make sense for the defence team's lead to be the person with the most experience in the type of case at hand, someone who has spent a great deal of time studying the issues at hand.

 

[otto]

Don't these two statements seem to be at odds with each other. If he's very concerned with what's going on, I tend to think he understands what's going on. I know, too simplistic, but just seems like an interesting way to word things.

What I see at odds is that his lawyer wants a psych exam to determine whether the suspect understand what's going on, but we know that the suspect attempted to commit suicide - presumably because he's well aware of what's going on and doesn't like it.

 

[otto]

Everyone seems to have this notion that DS took Hailey at 3:00 am and took her straight to his aunts property and had a bonfire with her remains. I question that because given the proximity, it would be too risky that the aunt would be awakened. My theory is that DS didn't show up at the aunts until Monday morning when he knew she would be at work and he would not have to worry about the glowing fire being noticed in the middle of the night.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think there's a reason that the suspect borrowed a van and it wasn't just to ensure that he wasn't driving a vehicle that is registered to him. I think that he spend time with the 2 year old girl in the van, and that after murdering her at that remote location, he looked for a way to eliminate her remains. He settled on putting her remains in the midst of several houses and trailers. I highly doubt that she was left there in a condition where she could be recognized as the abducted child. I think it's more likely that her remains were burned - an indignity to her body.

I would like to know more about evidence found at the house. For example, was the weapon left at the scene, and were there any prints on the weapon? Is there anything to connect the suspect with the actual murder - keeping in mind that he had probably been in the house at another time and evidence of him in the house is not evidence that he committed the murder.

If there's nothing in Terry's murder that connects to the suspect, then the conviction hinges on connecting the suspect to the child's remains. The remains are most likely held by the coroner's office to ensure that the defence can analyse the remains for the purpose of identifying the remains as Hailey. If the remains are gone, the defence might argue that they do not belong to Hailey and that she is still missing. If that argument is successful, and there's nothing to connect the suspect to Terry's murder, he might not be convicted.

 

[KatieLiz]

I understand what you're saying but DS's lawyer had already stated they elected trial by judge and jury before Snowglobe posted his/her post.

Yes. I believe Snowglobe posted the explanation because they are trying to imply he believes this shows an admission of guilt by choosing a jury. That's how I read it. Basically "if DS were innocent he wouldn't risk a jury trial." Wanting to show insanity at the time of the crime is admitting he committed said crime. That's how I read it at least. Basically Snowglobe knew DS had selected jury trial, therefore implying his guilt and telling us to read between the lines without coming out and saying it.

 

[ElleElle]

That really doesn't answer the question. All that is saying, if I'm not mistaken, is that 2nd degree murder would become 1st degree murder if a kidnapping was involved. I highly doubt that the murder charge includes a kidnapping charge as one charge would put the jury in a difficult position. For instance, if the jury believed he killed them, but didn't see proof of kidnapping, they would have to find him not guilty because it's a single charge.

Again, there is no rush here. We know the forensic tests will take time, and DS ain't going anywhere. We don't know what he told police, beyond the location of the body, so it is quite possible that they are trying to piece this together.?

As far as the indignity charge goes, I believe that if he killed Hailey at her home and dumped her body in the woods, that in itself would warrant the indignity charge. My problem with that is that if he were simply dumping a body, why do it on a piece of property that could be directly linked to you? Obviously at some point those remains would be found.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know what nationality you are, but this is Canadian law, as per the Canada Criminal Code.

 

[blacksheep]

Yes. I believe Snowglobe posted the explanation because they are trying to imply he believes this shows an admission of guilt by choosing a jury. That's how I read it. Basically "if DS were innocent he wouldn't risk a jury trial." Wanting to show insanity at the time of the crime is admitting he committed said crime. That's how I read it at least. Basically Snowglobe knew DS had selected jury trial, therefore implying his guilt and telling us to read between the lines without coming out and saying it.

Since a jury trial requires a unanimous vote to convict, it's not a risk at all to be tried by jury in an innocent plea. It only takes one vote and as has been mentioned here a couple times, Jodi Arias is prime example of how that can work to the defendants benefit. There are many more.

 

[ElleElle]

I think he killed her after. I can't imagine toting one body around but not the other.

"why do it on a piece of property that could be directly linked to you?"
I have seen a lot of suspects willing to admit to murder, yet for some reason they refuse to admit to sexual assault. I think he may have known he was going to be caught so he wanted to hide evidence of that.

This is all just my opinion based on many other cases I have followed. Austin Sigg was one well know killer that admitted to the kill but not the sexual assault.

BBM ~ A two year is not hard to move, and besides, he may have had other plans for her before telling the RCMP where the body was. Maybe coming down off a drug.

 

[ElleElle]

Michael Rafferty was charged with kidnapping, sexual assault and 1st degree murder for the abduction and murder of Victoria Stafford.

Interesting. Good find, thanks for that. :cheers:

 

[Jasper52]

If there's nothing in Terry's murder that connects to the suspect, then the conviction hinges on connecting the suspect to the child's remains. The remains are most likely held by the coroner's office to ensure that the defence can analyse the remains for the purpose of identifying the remains as Hailey. If the remains are gone, the defence might argue that they do not belong to Hailey and that she is still missing. If that argument is successful, and there's nothing to connect the suspect to Terry's murder, he might not be convicted.

Wouldn't DNA results be sufficent enough in identifying HDB?

 

[otto]

Yes. I believe Snowglobe posted the explanation because they are trying to imply he believes this shows an admission of guilt by choosing a jury. That's how I read it. Basically "if DS were innocent he wouldn't risk a jury trial." Wanting to show insanity at the time of the crime is admitting he committed said crime. That's how I read it at least. Basically Snowglobe knew DS had selected jury trial, therefore implying his guilt and telling us to read between the lines without coming out and saying it.

Jian Ghomeshi elected judge alone. He's guilty.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/jian-ghomeshi-pleads-not-guilty-to-5-charges-1.2590012

The disadvantage of trial by jury is that the verdict can be appealed by both the suspect and the prosecution, and a new trial set. This can go on for years, much like the Amanda Knox and Raffael Sollecito trial. An appeal of a Judge alone verdict is unlikely (correct me if I'm wrong) to be appealed and, as a result, land on a jury's lap.

Trial by Judge alone fast tracks the process, much like Rudy Guede in the murder of Meredith Kercher. In any case, the decision for trial by jury means that both the suspect and prosecution can appeal a verdict (on valid legal grounds), and the suspect can do it all over again and again (dragging out the process), and then appeal up the chain, albeit at his own expense, potentially to the Supreme Court, like the murderers of Victoria Stafford. He's looking for every possible exit.

Jian Ghomeshi, on the other hand, is without doubt, responsible for some problematic activities that violate the law - yet he's going to most likely argue that the "culture" of the CBC enabled him to get out of hand ... just a guess.