But one of the LE testified that nothing appeared to be stolen. Whether that means the money was there or not, who knows,but LE made a point of saying that nothing was stolen. But, you're right, it does open up motive for others.That money of Hanne's has been asked about again. No one has said that he took it.
I think the Defence is going to try and make the Jury believe that a lot of people knew the money was in the freezer and that since no DNA was found in Hanne's house belonging to DS then it is possible that someone other than DS killed Hanne. Not that I believe that for a second but that money keeps coming up and people did know about it and knew where she kept it.
MOO
Do you have a link to support that he was going to court the week of his arrest for B&E? In his interview with McCauley, he said he was due in traffic court (at 9am on the 15th, IIRC). Just wondering.It doesn't seem anyone, including LE checking surveillance, have been able to nail down when the van was returned.
DS's uncle reported the van to police at 17:47 pm on the 14th. He identified van #5, among the several the company possessed, because the odometer showed someone had used it without permission: companies keep a notebook in each van recording who used it and the odometer at the beginning and end of each trip, so no one can use it for personal stuff.
Police towed it to their lab and found evidence of blood. At that point they would have intensely questioned the family about who might have used it, and DS was identified as having used the van in the past. Also, since he lived at the cleaners, he would have been the one who could most easily take and return the keys.
That was when he became a suspect, overnight the 14th-15th.
The family/employees evidently could remember the van was there on the 13th, and it was there again on the 14th, but I don't believe anyone saw DS return it, that would have come out.
I strongly expect he would have returned it before people arrived for work, because a) if anyone noticed it missing, they'd have reported it stolen and b) if he was seen returning ithe'd get into trouble for unauthorized use of the van: he was going to court that week on charges of break and enter, the business would not be easygoing about him using the van overnight.
I suspect he was believed to have he slept at his apartment that night (ie he hadn't been at his mother's, like he was the next night), he may have been seen at the drycleaners sometime after he 'got up' on the 14th.
What is unknown is whether he had his own car. I get the impression he did not.
I'm not surprised about a fire still smouldering days after, it must have been a very big, very hot fire, he didn't have much water (if any, that could have been a lie so as not to make people mad that he didn't properly put it out), in warm dry weather I think it could smoulder for days unless buckets and buckets of water were used to put it out.
Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
I believe DS said in his confession that it was his shoes (and therefore his rubber soles) in the fire.I was trying to figure out how long DS may have had Hailey for alive but at this time there is not enough information to go on. We know the neighbour of T heard a child's cry around 3:20 and 3:30am. The van was spotted on CCTV at 3:31am. DS's uncle KS reported the van was missing sometime between September 13th and 14th, so obviously the van was returned sometime on the 14th. Did LE have a suspect in mind when the put out the Amber Alert on the 14th at 2:15pm but couldn't locate DS with the van? At 6:52 LE updated their Amber Alert stating the whip flag had a blue light on it. I wonder if they got that information from KS/LS because the van was missing. It seems as if DS's uncle or father, on the 14th heard the Amber Alert and the description of the company van, called LE. But that doesn't really narrow down the time to how long it was missing. Unless there is something very telling in the SOF that reads 'DS was in the area around the time van #5 was returned.' To me that sounds like someone witnessed him returning in the van. But again a time hasn't been given if this was the case. Perhaps we will hear from such witness if there is one. Might be his uncle or someone else, as his father has already testified. Has anyone been able to narrow a time down? Am I missing something? TIA.
What might be more telling is DS's cousin being at the acreage September 15th at 2pm and finding smoke still present from the fire. That would be 34 1/2 hours from the time H was abducted. IMO I find it bizarre and hard to believehot coals/smoke would still be present so many hours later. Even 24 hours later seems like a long time to have smoldering IMO. So how long was this poor baby tormented by this monster?
I still believe the motive for this taking H from her home was because he is a sadistic sexual deviant, and he incinerated her remains because there would be no evidence to prove rape. He is nothing but a liar and pure evil and I for one do not buy he had voices in his head....part of his cop out BS. Typical motive for an adult male murdering a child is sexually motivated. Coincidentally Hanne found only in underwear...I'm not buy it, I'd say sexually motivated.
Has it been mentioned what the books were titled that were found in the fired pit? Also, the rubber soles and fabric found in the fire pit, any mention yet if those were belongings of H's? Telltale sign IMO is if the fabric was her clothing, why would he need to remove her clothing? If he didn't remove her clothing/shoes then they should have been ashes long before her body disintegrated. Also, was it mentioned yet whose blood was found in the van? I guess that information would come from forensic expert. But they have mentioned it was T's blood found throughout his house. ALL MOO.
The family owns a dry cleaning business in the Crowsnest Pass of southwestern Alberta. When he and his brother noticed one of the company vans had been moved around the day Blanchettes body was discovered and Hailey was missing, Larry Saretzky said they called the police.
RCMP were already looking to speak to Derek Saretzky who they had identified as a person of interest. While officers waited nearby, Larry Saretzky said he talked to his son.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...-alberta-triple-murder-trial/article35301507/
Do you have a link to support that he was going to court the week of his arrest for B&E? In his interview with McCauley, he said he was due in traffic court (at 9am on the 15th, IIRC).
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/derek-saretzky-blairmore-homicides-suspect-1.3231499He has no criminal record but was supposed to appear in court on Tuesday on outstanding charges of breaking and entering and possession of property under $5,000 from an incident in August.
Court records also reveal Saretzky faced stolen property and theft charges in 2012 and 2013, matters that were dealt with by alternative measures, meaning the prosecution withdrew the charges after Saretzky met certain conditions.
I believe she testifies the last day
I posted about his court date before, as I think it could be significant. The CBC reported about it when he was arrested.
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/derek-saretzky-blairmore-homicides-suspect-1.3231499
I think he was lying about it being a traffic ticket, he lied about a lot of things, to 'save face', as the interviewer said.
Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
Wow. He was planning Hailey's murder even as he was at "The Ranch" with his aunt the day after he killed Hanne. This guy's going down for Murder One.
The only hint about the time of the attack on Hanne is the neighbour who testified his dog went to sniff under Hanne's door at 8:30 pm. That could indicate the murder had already happened (but it assumes DS broke in before dark, and knew Hanne went to bed exceptionally early, which hasn't been mentioned.). Otherwise, I'm also at a loss why he would be so guilty before killing her, unless he was acting out scenarios in advance.Hanne was found on Sept 9th. Was it ever determined when she was murdered? Are we to assume that DS went to his aunt's church (is that the only church he's attended?) very soon after he killed Hanne and this is the "state" his aunt found him in? Was it intentional on his part to see his aunt and for her to see his "mental state"?
It wasn't clear to me in the tweets why they went to the "ranch" to look around on the 9th. Did he ask his aunt to take him there?
MOO
The only hint about the time of the attack on Hanne is the neighbour who testified his dog went to sniff under Hanne's door at 8:30 pm. That could indicate the murder had already happened (but it assumes DS broke in before dark, and knew Hanne went to bed exceptionally early, which hasn't been mentioned.). Otherwise, I'm also at a loss why he would be so guilty before killing her, unless he was acting out scenarios in advance.
Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
http://video.todaysfarmer.ca/search/all/derek-saretzky-re-enactment-video/5475714228001
I don't think this one has been posted yet
And seemingly scouting out a kill location for a toddler. Unreal.Not only was he acting guilty, he was admitting that he had done something bad.
Psychopath. Zero remorse, zero empathy, no emotion. Talks about it like he was killing a deer or something.He's so calm it's eerie.