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

[Rainstorm]

So they did not say who's blood it was? Could he have cut him self while he stabbed Tb? Or collected Blood from TB and spilt it. Or was this a mixture.

 

[rmoeller]

They didn't say who's blood it was.

So they did not say who's blood it was? Could he have cut him self while he stabbed Tb? Or collected Blood from TB and spilt it. Or was this a mixture.

 

[dogmatica]

Wondering about a few people who were not called as witnesses...

Uncle who reported the van had been moved. There was mention of km's recorded when he had last used the van. There was also mention of DS using the vehicle unauthorized in the past. There was also the video of them retracing the drive. I did not see any mention of tying these points together. When did DS use it in the past? Who else had access? Why didn't they show the video of the van passing? Was this the only place that had video footage in Blairmore? Same with video at gas station in Coleman. How detailed was it? What was the mileage when they seized the van? No other video footage?

Cousin who found the remains at the campsite.

Psychiatrist who assessed DS.

DS mother who may have been able to provide a timeline of when he was/wasn't there, whether she had a vehicle, his behavior around this time etc.

Also a few other questions I've had...

Did they photograph DS's hands when he was arrested? No mention of swabs taken either. Didn't hear any questions from experts regarding the cut marks. Did they take a blood sample from him to see if he had any drugs in his system? Had he shaved his head recently?

He had a cellphone... did they trace it's location? Look at call/texts records?

What was his shoe size? Do boots match? Any shoe impressions at HM scene? TB scene? alley? Foot size comparison in the van to DS?

Great questions - and all very relevant imo. Would be interesting to know how/why they decide what to include and what not to include.

 

[dogmatica]

I have a feeling that any info found on his phone or computer was thrown out. I also think there will be a lot of info that the jury was not allowed to hear that will be released after this trial is over. JMO

No doubt. Just like Michael Rafferty - his child prn searches and material weren't allowed. I'm guessing there's plenty more we'll hear after the jury is sequestered.

 

[Tealgrove]

I'm still wondering why DS's own blood was found in his apartment. Did he cut himself during the killing of Terry or Hailey or, did he self harm in some way? They did find his own blood in a measuring cup. Or was it all just a ruse to help built his story?

 

[ILoveDateline]

They know by your presence there and you were sitting on the proper side of the courtroom. Sometimes there are no words that are appropriate. Your support is evidenced by your actions.

Btw, how busy was it? You mentioned having to move over when CD family entered. Was the courtroom full?

I wanted to tell them about our support, but just couldn't.

 

[rmoeller]

I want to know, too.

I'm still wondering why DS's own blood was found in his apartment. Did he cut himself during the killing of Terry or Hailey or, did he self harm in some way? They did find his own blood in a measuring cup. Or was it all just a ruse to help built his story?

 

[rmoeller]

Is there a side, really? I sat on the left. There were 8-10 on the same side as me the whole time. Ten more came with Cheyenne, but they all left after her testimony. Media was on the right, and I noticed there was one non-media person on the right at the back.

They know by your presence there and you were sitting on the proper side of the courtroom. Sometimes there are no words that are appropriate. Your support is evidenced by your actions.

Btw, how busy was it? You mentioned having to move over when CD family entered. Was the courtroom full?

 

[Kamille]

Patrick Burles‏ @PatrickBurles 2h2 hours ago
Triple murder trial of Derek #Saretzky is about to resume. It's anticipated the Crown will close their case today.

Patrick Burles‏ @PatrickBurles 2h2 hours ago
The jury is in and the trial is back underway #Saretzky

Patrick Burles‏ @PatrickBurles 2h2 hours ago
Crown closes their case and the defence elects to call no evidence #Saretzky

Patrick Burles‏ @PatrickBurles 2h2 hours ago
Closing arguments set for Monday morning and the jury has been dismissed for the weekend #Saretzky

https://twitter.com/PatrickBurles?lang=en

 

[Kamille]

Well that was quick. No surprise that the defence isn't presenting a case. It's Douglas Garland all over again. Pretty much an open and shut case IMO.

 

[criminal mind]

I don't understand why they go through the entire trial and then don't call any evidence. Closing should be interesting... Any guesses on how long jury will be out? I am guessing less than the Garland Trial.

Patrick Burles‏ @PatrickBurles 2h2 hours ago
Triple murder trial of Derek #Saretzky is about to resume. It's anticipated the Crown will close their case today.

Patrick Burles‏ @PatrickBurles 2h2 hours ago
The jury is in and the trial is back underway #Saretzky

Patrick Burles‏ @PatrickBurles 2h2 hours ago
Crown closes their case and the defence elects to call no evidence #Saretzky

Patrick Burles‏ @PatrickBurles 2h2 hours ago
Closing arguments set for Monday morning and the jury has been dismissed for the weekend #Saretzky

https://twitter.com/PatrickBurles?lang=en

 

[Kamille]

I don't understand why they go through the entire trial and then don't call any evidence. Closing should be interesting... Any guesses on how long jury will be out? I am guessing less than the Garland Trial.

Well they'll have their chance to present DS's version of events in their closing. Even though it appears they can't back up anything with evidence. As someone said earlier, it's possible that they tried for some kind of deal and the Crown wasn't having any of it. So they decided to go to trial and take their chances that they can convince the jury in the closing arguments of something that will reduce the charges and/or sentencing of their client. Which, considering opening and closing statements are not evidence, it really shouldn't convince the jury of anything. But in some cases it does. Anyone remember Casey Anthony?

So do we think they will bring up the HM murder and DS being shown a picture of the murder scene? Are they going to suggest he didn't murder her but confessed based on the accusation and being shown a pic of the crime scene? They fought to get that evidence in during a cross. How about going for second degree on TB? DS was there to kidnap Hailey and didn't plan to kill TB? I think that "victim list" will negate both of those possibilities.

:dunno:

MOO

ETA: I think the jury will be out for the same or less time than the DG trial as well.

 

[Kamille]

Defence calls no evidence in Derek Saretzky triple murder trial

LETHBRIDGE – After 11 days of evidence from the Crown, the defence in the triple homicide case of Derek Saretzky has decided to present none of their own.

“Sir, defence has elected to call no evidence,” stated Patrick Edgerton, after the Crown closed their case Friday morning (June 23).

Outside the courtroom, Edgerton declined to comment to the media, regarding the defence decision.

http://lethbridgenewsnow.com/articl...o-evidence-derek-saretzky-triple-murder-trial

 

[dogmatica]

Well they'll have their chance to present DS's version of events in their closing. Even though it appears they can't back up anything with evidence. As someone said earlier, it's possible that they tried for some kind of deal and the Crown wasn't having any of it. So they decided to go to trial and take their chances that they can convince the jury in the closing arguments of something that will reduce the charges and/or sentencing of their client. Which, considering opening and closing statements are not evidence, it really shouldn't convince the jury of anything. But in some cases it does. Anyone remember Casey Anthony?

So do we think they will bring up the HM murder and DS being shown a picture of the murder scene? Are they going to suggest he didn't murder her but confessed based on the accusation and being shown a pic of the crime scene? They fought to get that evidence in during a cross. How about going for second degree on TB? DS was there to kidnap Hailey and didn't plan to kill TB? I think that "victim list" will negate both of those possibilities.

:dunno:

MOO

ETA: I think the jury will be out for the same or less time than the DG trial as well.

We're not sure HM's body was shown in the crime scene photo he was shown, are we?

 

[Kamille]

We're not sure HM's body was shown in the crime scene photo he was shown, are we?

No. The tweets just indicated that the Crown conceded that DS had been shown a photograph of the HM crime scene on Sept 17, 2015 and that he had looked at it for "some period of time". I'm assuming this was done by the investigators for the HM murder and not by Sgt McCauley who was later asked by the HM investigator, Fitzgerald, to re-interview DS about the HM murder.

This seems to be the only real area of contention that the defence has with the Crown's case. That and the fact that they did not seem to fully investigate the other suspect in HM's murder. I'm thinking that they may try to suggest that DS is not responsible for HM's murder, or that it hasn't been proven that he is.

MOO

 

[Kfox]

To me I think the not calling evidence has more to do with appeal... if u don't present evidence st trial it's now new evidence grounds for appeal...

 

[dogmatica]

To me I think the not calling evidence has more to do with appeal... if u don't present evidence st trial it's now new evidence grounds for appeal...

What would be the logic in that? That information (if there is any) wouldn't be any more relevant or powerful in an appeal than it would be at trial.

 

[Kfox]

There could be value in it in some cases I don't know in this one possibly in regards to confessions but if u think about Douglas garland... new evidence and new attempt to have farm search inadmissible if they can get any key evidence out on appeal but need grounds it helps to have a reason for appeal

 

[Melzack]

What about him hearing voices and cannibalization? I thought the defence would bring out a psychiatrist to testify. I guess both sides agree that he's a manipulative liar!

 

[Satchie]

I wonder if it's DS who had input into going to trial/mounting a defence. Yes, he initially fudged, prevaricated, made excuses like 'the devil made me do it', but he did confess, and caved pretty quickly, unlike Garland and most other cases I've followed.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk