GUILTY Canada - Terry, 27, & Hailey Blanchette, 2, Blairmore, AB, 14 Sept 2015 #3

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
What?! That's your reaction!?! This is HUGE... Essentially this means the holdback evidence they've been harping on could be completely irrelevant! This could open a ton of doors for the Defence and raises so many questions regarding why this second interview has not come up until now. Questions re: why the Crown would object to this and why they'd concede... if it's allowed to be discussed... I mean.. holy heck
Sorry, I'm lost. What are you referring to?
 
So did Saretzky look at the crime scene photo of Hanne for 8 minutes BEFORE he gave info about what he did to Hanne?
 
BTW... not arguing for Saretzky... arguing for the sake of finding the truth and since the police/RCMP are responsible for the investigation we have to be confident that they do a thorough job so that the facts are the facts and nothing is left out regardless of what verdict it supports.

With what we've heard so far I think one could argue, however remote the chance it happened is, that he didn't kill Hanne. If that was the case and someone else killed her, they would be free if he was found guilty of causing her death whether it's first degree or not.

Up to this point, assuming it would have been tweeted about, the evidence presented would lead the jury to believe that DS had not been questioned about HM's murder until March 2016 when he 'confessed'.

The thing about his confessions too is that he's said so many different things that there's more than enough room to argue that things he said weren't true. IIRC DNA evidence has not put DS at any crime scene or even in the van. Can anyone verify that?
 
So did Saretzky look at the crime scene photo of Hanne for 8 minutes BEFORE he gave info about what he did to Hanne?

Yes! He was shown the photos on Sept 17, 2015 and didn't 'confess' until March 2, 2016. Also, was not officially charged until April 19, 2016.
 
So did Saretzky look at the crime scene photo of Hanne for 8 minutes BEFORE he gave info about what he did to Hanne?
Yes. DS was shown the pic, and looked at it for 8 mins, on 09/17/2015. He was interviewed on the HM murder (were hearing now for a second time), and gave details and confessed to the murder when speaking to McCauley after 6 month in jail. LE said he gave up details withheld from the media. I assume the defence's point is, he could have made up the details from seeing the picture.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk
 
I went to the trial today. I'll put my thoughts together and post tonight. If you have any questions ask away.
 
Snipped for space
IIRC DNA evidence has not put DS at any crime scene or even in the van. Can anyone verify that?

DNA at a crime scenes? No. But Hailey's blood was found on the boots in his apartment.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk
 
I went to the trial today. I'll put my thoughts together and post tonight. If you have any questions ask away.



Can't wait to read your observations!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I went to the trial today. I'll put my thoughts together and post tonight. If you have any questions ask away.
Wow. Must have been interesting. I have no questions for you. Just wanted to say, I was looking back at posts from the beginning of the trial just this morning. There was one from you that said you wouldn't be attending the trial and that you moved there the day Hailey was reported missing. You've been twice now, IIRC. What made you change your mind?
I went to the trial today. I'll put my thoughts together and post tonight. If you have any questions ask away.


Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk
 
I didn't gather there was a second interview. Imo

What?! That's your reaction!?! This is HUGE... Essentially this means the holdback evidence they've been harping on could be completely irrelevant! This could open a ton of doors for the Defence and raises so many questions regarding why this second interview has not come up until now. Questions re: why the Crown would object to this and why they'd concede... if it's allowed to be discussed... I mean.. holy heck
 
The thing about his confessions too is that he's said so many different things that there's more than enough room to argue that things he said weren't true. IIRC DNA evidence has not put DS at any crime scene or even in the van. Can anyone verify that?

DS's DNA or fingerprints were not found at either crime scene or in the van. The only trace of victim's DNA or blood associated with DS is Hailey's blood on his boots. TBs blood was found in the van, and the van is linked to DS, he had access to it.

I agree that the case rests on DS's confessions, and false confessions have extracted/used in the past, leading to great controversy. I just finished a book on this subject, by a former FBI top investigator: Law and Disorder by John Douglas:. "Douglas reveals what happens when preconceived ideas, bias, superstition, and even media coverage obstruct a dispassionate pursuit of the evidence—and shows what we must do to avoid modern-day re-enactments of the Salem Witch Trials. "



Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
 
Thanks to all who did the tweets. It is a great way to be able to pop in and follow the case. I wonder too if it all comes down to an infatuation with CD. Perhaps she did not reciprocate the feelings but DS maybe thought if TB and little Hailey were out of the way that he might stand a chance. Yet she didn't live there anymore and he didnt follow her when she moved away. It just doesn't make sense. Killing them didn't accomplish anything. I hope he gets the 75 years just like Douglas Garland. JMO
 
Imo neither of these objections, what was allowed to be said/not said mattered to the big picture. It was more that they wanted to clarify without the jury present.

For those that missed it here is some context for the two objections we've heard about:

Defense objects to Crown



We don't hear about it (no further tweets after lunch) so it sounds like the objection was sustained (but it's possible that it was and no one tweeted about it). It would make sense that the Investigator would not be able to give evidence on this subject and evidence would have come from the ME and qualified bloodstain expert.

Crown objects to Defense's during cross-exam



https://twitter.com/KMartinCourts
https://twitter.com/JWSchnarrHerald
https://twitter.com/CBCMeg
https://twitter.com/CTVKaellaCarr
 
Thanks to all who did the tweets. It is a great way to be able to pop in and follow the case. I wonder too if it all comes down to an infatuation with CD. Perhaps she did not reciprocate the feelings but DS maybe thought if TB and little Hailey were out of the way that he might stand a chance. Yet she didn't live there anymore and he didnt follow her when she moved away. It just doesn't make sense. Killing them didn't accomplish anything. I hope he gets the 75 years just like Douglas Garland. JMO
When I first heard the testimony from the neighbour about seeing the vn and hearing a child crying and then a young woman's voice, I thought, OMG, the mom's involved. I thought maybe she hired or convinced him to take the baby so she could have her full time. I've now heard enough to rid myself of those thoughts. Just sharing MOO.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
203
Guests online
1,588
Total visitors
1,791

Forum statistics

Threads
606,592
Messages
18,206,717
Members
233,903
Latest member
rayhartley90
Back
Top