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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Satchie said:
Thanks, and checking back, it was also raised by the defence in cross-examinating Terry Megli, http://www.calgarysun.com/2017/06/09/derek-saretzky-trial-hears-suspect-knew-hanne-meketech.



So I think it was a local rumour, raised by the defense to show someone else might've had a motive to kill Hanne.

Too bad LE didn't seem to make any effort to confirm or deny it, it would be a pretty good motive. However, I think a purely mercenary murderer wouldn't be likely to use that level of violence.


Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Ah, so the rumour was that she had inherited around $90,000 from her mother not long before her death but neither side made the effort to confirm this or that she had somehow converted this inheritance to cash. They both just let it dangle as a rumour. Two different people indicated HM was known to keep money in her home. If that money is missing, I'd be looking at the ex husband who probably found out about the inheritance, had access to the home when she wasn't there and knew where she hid money. Or the other ex con who was in the area. But there was likely no reason to murder her to steal money that she told people she hides in the freezer. If it was stolen, it was probably stolen shortly after she received it and she was not aware of the theft.

MOO
 
Kamille said:
I know the defence has raised issues that may reflect some doubt in the jurors and I assume that's all they intended to do. They don't have to give the answers to any questions, especially if the answers are detrimental to their client, nor should they just make up answers to suggest to the jury. They just have to raise the questions to make the jury think about the answers. Then it all depends on how the jury chooses to process it. I know it's making me think...at least about the HM murder. And I think it might be reflected in the amount of time the jury is actually out in this case. We all thought it would be quick but I think some of the questions about the HM murder are going to require some time for them all to process. Which is just what the defence is aiming for. If they can get one not guilty on the three charges then it's a victory for them. Or even a guilty verdict on a lesser charge.

As far as the question regarding why is Chy crossed off the list, a reasonable explanation could be that he crossed the names off his "hit list" on his way to commit the murders and thought she was still living in TB's home or would be there because he knew Hailey was there. Will the jury see it this way? Or will they disregard that evidence as proof that he murdered anyone on the list?

I have a feeling the jury will be going over all of those questions and discrepancies and having some very interesting conversations about them. Which I didn't think they'd need to be doing when I predicted they'd be back as quick as or quicker than the DG jury. I think we could also have some interesting discussions with each question here. And I also agree with aber that this could have been avoided by digging for more solid evidence that he murdered HM or at least working to clear any and all other potential suspects. Looks like they just stopped doing that after DS became a suspect.

So let's talk about the money. ;)

MOO
Click to expand...
I think if the jurors do their job as they should, they will be looking hard at the HM murder and analyzing the questions the Defense raised. However, I think once they're done with the analysis, they will conclude that he did in fact premeditate and then murder HM. I think the Defense raised some doubt - but I don't think it was reasonable doubt.
 
Kamille said:
I was curious about that too. It's right in your face every time they post that list and yet nothing was ever said about it that I can recall. I wonder if that is something that couldn't be discussed for some reason? It's obvious from the paw prints at the crime scene that the dogs were walking around after her murder. I was surprised to read the tweet today that said that one of HM's little dogs was lying on her body when she was found. How sad. :cry:

MOO
Click to expand...
It'll be interesting to see what (if anything) comes to light when the jury is sequestered. Perhaps some questions such as yours will be answered. Or not.
 
Lunath said:
I mostly just lurk, but I've put together a possible narrative that could account for some of the weird discrepancies this case has. All MOO, of course.

Leading up to the murders, we know DS had a court case coming up for break and enter, and we know he had previously had similar charges when he was younger which were dealt with so that he didn't end up with a record. His family knew about that and supported him but I'm sure it was made clear to him that he needed to get himself together and not repeat them.

DS seems to care about his family's opinion of him, if not society's. Even when confessing to murder, he tells police that he had traffic court, which seems to indicate his reluctance to admit he was up for B&E was seriously ingrained in his mind.

So, what I'm thinking is that when he showed up in church, he was thinking of telling his aunt (or a priest, or other family member) about the charges he was facing. That's the bad thing he did. Maybe he was feeling torn between doing the right thing (telling his family) and the wrong thing (acting out his murderous fantasies). He can't bring himself to tell his aunt, so he's goes ahead and kills Hanne.

I do think he premeditated the crimes. The list of names had to have been written before the church times...you don't start writing halfway down a page. They could have been crossed out later. He was thinking about murder before he decided to go to church. It's possible he was motivated by the rumor about money, he could have thought that if he was sentenced to fines and probation, he could pay and not have to fess up to his family.

I think "sleepers for the dogs" is definitely proof he though ahead about killing Hanne. But when the time came, he couldn't get ahold of "sleepers" or just decided it didn't matter. He worked himself up to kill, kicked the door in, and did it. Maybe he looked for the money and didn't find anything, or maybe he was so agitated he forgot. Either way, at that point there was no reason not to go through with his plan for killing Terry, Hailey and Chy.

As for Chy being on the list, if he didn't know she didn't live with Terry I think he planned on killing all of them. It sounds like he thought that being fiends was dating, and he was enraged when she chose the "bad boy" over the "nice guy". (Although he probably didn't ever actually tell her he liked her.) In his imagination she had betrayed him, and "that hideous baby" was living proof. When he crossed off the names later, he figured killing Hailey worked as revenge. He didn't kill Chy and he didn't use sleepers on the dogs, but it was close enough.

Notice that when he first confessed (sort of) it was in front of his dad. Then he kept his mouth shut until Sgt. McCauley got him talking, which he did by basically acting like a family member. That's DS's weakness. Also, I don't think it's surprising that six months later his recollection of Hanne's murder was off.
Click to expand...
That's all very plausible and well thought out. I agree with your theory of why Chy was crossed off, because he effectively destroyed her by murdering her daughter.

Regarding the other things the Defense brought up as not matching up to how he should have done things if the Crown's theory is correct - don't forget we're dealing with someone who isn't very bright, who is impulsive at the same time as being a planner, and who was presumably high and/or drunk when he did these things,and probably when he conceived of and planned the murders.
 
The site is being impossible today for me. :tantrum:

I disagree about the ineffective police work. I did not know you cannot conviction on a confession alone – silly me. I feel there is enough evidence without the confession. Let’s pretend for a minute there is no confession(s). We have:

Neighbour witness to van and child’s cry at 3:30 am outside TB’s house
Amber alert issued for white van
TB’s blood in back of van
Uncle reports the van and turns LE on to DS as POI
Both DS and his dad are emotional when talking to LE about Hailey’s whereabouts
LE finds Hailey’s remains and blood at campsite recently visited by DS and his Aunt. Family testifies no one else had been there recently.
Hailey’s blood found on boot in DS’s apartment
List with murder victims names on list
No fingerprints at crime scene, gloves found at DS’s
Similar COD/crimes scenes between TB & HM. time frame

This is all I need for M1 for all three. List & gloves = premeditation. I believe this beyond a reasonable doubt. JMO.

Separately, I acknowledge that there is a case for the defense that says it’s unfair that LE was put on to DS as suspect in the HM case due to similar crime scenes, however, the list also connects the cases. I’m not sure if LE had the list at the time of that interview. I do not consider the list a coincidence or meaning anything but a "kill list".

But guess what? He did confess! And he hadn’t given up, because a person who is confessing out of – hmm, reckless abandon/exasperation/disregard for self-preservation, I’m not sure what the defense is suggesting – doesn’t say he did it because he thought no one would miss her. He says, “I don’t’ know” like all of the people who provide false confessions. If you are beaten down (in spirit) to confess to something you didn’t do, because you don’t care what happens next, you don’t offer up reasons. You don’t say how or why. He willingly gave up those details.

ALL MOO.
 
I forgot to add that while I think the evidence is there, the Crown didnt do an outstanding job painting a picture. I felt the testimony, both flow and content, was fragmented and choppy. But they did a good job. I think it would have been more effective to lay out all the evidence and call McCauley last. Though, they might not have been given a choice due to schedules.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk
 
ILoveDateline said:
The site is being impossible today for me. :tantrum:

I disagree about the ineffective police work. I did not know you cannot conviction on a confession alone – silly me. I feel there is enough evidence without the confession. Let’s pretend for a minute there is no confession(s). We have:

Neighbour witness to van and child’s cry at 3:30 am outside TB’s house
Amber alert issued for white van
TB’s blood in back of van
Uncle reports the van and turns LE on to DS as POI
Both DS and his dad are emotional when talking to LE about Hailey’s whereabouts
LE finds Hailey’s remains and blood at campsite recently visited by DS and his Aunt. Family testifies no one else had been there recently.
Hailey’s blood found on boot in DS’s apartment
List with murder victims names on list
No fingerprints at crime scene, gloves found at DS’s
Similar COD/crimes scenes between TB & HM. time frame

This is all I need for M1 for all three. List & gloves = premeditation. I believe this beyond a reasonable doubt. JMO.

Separately, I acknowledge that there is a case for the defense that says it’s unfair that LE was put on to DS as suspect in the HM case due to similar crime scenes, however, the list also connects the cases. I’m not sure if LE had the list at the time of that interview. I do not consider the list a coincidence or meaning anything but a "kill list".

But guess what? He did confess! And he hadn’t given up, because a person who is confessing out of – hmm, reckless abandon/exasperation/disregard for self-preservation, I’m not sure what the defense is suggesting – doesn’t say he did it because he thought no one would miss her. He says, “I don’t’ know” like all of the people who provide false confessions. If you are beaten down (in spirit) to confess to something you didn’t do, because you don’t care what happens next, you don’t offer up reasons. You don’t say how or why. He willingly gave up those details.

ALL MOO.
Click to expand...

I agree that the police work wasn't shoddy. I also think the physical and circumstantial evidence is extremely strong and is sufficient for 3 M1 convictions. Let's hope the jury sees it the same way.
 
Wow. Jury asking to remain as 14 for deliberations, Judge obviously has to decline. This must have been brutal for them, and they obviously have bonded through this, and all desperately want to be part of rendering Justice. Haven't heard that request from a jury before. I imagine for the 2 jurors that are picked to leave, it will be extremely difficult.

Very sad.
 
I feel horrible for those jurors who had to look at evidence and horrific photos and be asked to leave without participating in the final outcome with their fellow jurors. I understand their anger and frustration. I think I would react that way as well. And have PTSD.
 
matou said:
I feel horrible for those jurors who had to look at evidence and horrific photos and be asked to leave without participating in the final outcome with their fellow jurors. I understand their anger and frustration. I think I would react that way as well. And have PTSD.
Click to expand...
Apparently she said it right to the Judge. No doubt - that would be devastating. PTSD and depression too I imagine. Especially not being able to see it through.
 
"My Lord, we as a collective jury request we be allowed to remain a group of 14," the jurors asked in their note to Tilleman.


"We feel ... we have a right to closure."

..........................................

After that note was sent to the judge through the court clerk, jurors composed a second missive, requesting a private meeting with the judge and lawyers.


"We humbly ask to discuss the matter of 14 jurors in private with yourself, the defence counsel and the Crown," they wrote, asking that the meeting be held in the absence of the public and Saretzky.
 
Meghan Grant
@CBCMeg
[FONT=&amp]
You have us come against our will and then show us the door, she says. It's not right. Says they needed closure #Saretzky​
[/FONT]​

Apparently she was actually yelling this at the Judge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 148 more.
Total: 1,545 (members: 149, guests: 1,396)

Online statistics

Members online
149
Guests online
1,396
Total visitors
1,545
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,299
Messages
18,094,128
Members
230,841
Latest member
FastRayne
Back
Top