theshadow45
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2015
- Messages
- 5,737
- Reaction score
- 12,202
Bumping, today is Gordon’s birthday.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Snowtown?I stumbled on descriptions of tortures similar to what was done to Gordon. I can't go into much details for the sake of my sanity, but all it took was that groups of perps find themselves in position of power. They were attacking guys who in they saw as below them, after experiencing violence and repression from another group.
An excellent point. If there only was a chance to find out who was the first man to have muttered "I hear he was diddlin' kids!" in some local smoke-filled bar outside Alberta, when the discovery of the body at the abandoned farm was brought up for discussion... and if he kept repeating it...I believe that rumor about him being a child molester is very important. This is something that would make anyone who heard someone spilling beans about his murder shut up and never came forward. Cause who would like to be the one who helped imprison guys who did a "right thing", torturing and murdering a child molester? This IMO sounds like a direct coverup that could came from people involved, not only show up as stupid conclusion from someone who knew very little about the case.
I'd tend to think that was cause it was freezing winter weather and cause likely it was done to him in some garage/barn/unheated basement kind of location, close to where they had their stash of lime.The burned-out holes in the clothing suggest that they were torturing him while he was still dressed - an interesting note, since keeping the outer clothes on the victim is not too common in similar cases.
I don't remember anymore and I'm pretty glad that I don't.Snowtown?
For me it's same with lime.An excellent point. If there only was a chance to find out who was the first man to have muttered "I hear he was diddlin' kids!" in some local smoke-filled bar outside Alberta, when the discovery of the body at the abandoned farm was brought up for discussion... and if he kept repeating it...
I'd tend to think that was cause it was freezing winter weather and cause likely it was done to him in some garage/barn/unheated basement kind of location, close to where they had their stash of lime.
Taking his clothes off may not cross their minds OR they wanted to decrease any possible numbing effects that cold could bring.
I don't remember anymore and I'm pretty glad that I don't.
For me it's same with lime.
Unless it was common misconception from the time and place - with people genuinely believing that lime speds up decomposition (cause of some urban legend or popular movie theme) - I don't get that logic at all.
I think we can all agree on some facts here:
Lime is used in farming.
Cause lime it's used in farming, farmers are buying and stashing tons of lime to fertlize the soil with it early Spring.
Lime does not speed up decomposition.
Gordon's body was found covered in lime, in the area where there were big farms and farmers.
Septic tanks on the other hand ARE speeding up decomposition.
Gordon was found in a septic tank.
Why the conclusion there was that he was covered in lime cause... "probably" his murderers wanted to sped up his decomposition, so they tried covering him with lime and accidentally just preserved his body better, cause newsflash, lime does not speed up decomposition?!
This is just ridiculous for me.
They put him inside a septic tank, on abandoned property, head down, in a place where NOBODY was expected to show up at all, and where NOBODY was supposed to open that septic tank.
That was what they did to make sure that his body will decompose quickly and that he won't be found.
IMO much better quess in trying to figure out the reason why he was covered in lime would be to consider that he was either murdered where somebody stashed their lime, or that his body was transported there in lime bags or same way that lime bags, and got covered in it accidentally.
And that illogical theory with lime was made or strenghtened just to stop everyone from wondering too much who could have a lot of lime near that abandoned farm.
I'd tend to think that was cause it was freezing winter weather and cause likely it was done to him in some garage/barn/unheated basement kind of location, close to where they had their stash of lime.
Taking his clothes off may not cross their minds OR they wanted to decrease any possible numbing effects that cold could bring.
I don't remember anymore and I'm pretty glad that I don't.
For me it's same with lime.
Unless it was common misconception from the time and place - with people genuinely believing that lime speds up decomposition (cause of some urban legend or popular movie theme) - I don't get that logic at all.
I think we can all agree on some facts here:
Lime is used in farming.
Cause lime it's used in farming, farmers are buying and stashing tons of lime to fertlize the soil with it early Spring.
Lime does not speed up decomposition.
Gordon's body was found covered in lime, in the area where there were big farms and farmers.
Septic tanks on the other hand ARE speeding up decomposition.
Gordon was found in a septic tank.
Why the conclusion there was that he was covered in lime cause... "probably" his murderers wanted to sped up his decomposition, so they tried covering him with lime and accidentally just preserved his body better, cause newsflash, lime does not speed up decomposition?!
This is just ridiculous for me.
They put him inside a septic tank, on abandoned property, head down, in a place where NOBODY was expected to show up at all, and where NOBODY was supposed to open that septic tank.
That was what they did to make sure that his body will decompose quickly and that he won't be found.
IMO much better quess in trying to figure out the reason why he was covered in lime would be to consider that he was either murdered where somebody stashed their lime, or that his body was transported there in lime bags or same way that lime bags, and got covered in it accidentally.
And that illogical theory with lime was made or strenghtened just to stop everyone from wondering too much who could have a lot of lime near that abandoned farm.
That was in fact an extremely common misconception: that because lime reduces the smell, it must be also speeding up decomposition.Unless it was common misconception from the time and place - with people genuinely believing that lime speds up decomposition (cause of some urban legend or popular movie theme) - I don't get that logic at all.
hi just dropping in a couple years late but i watched the global news video and it was taken from this intersectionSo...
The blue line is the most obvious path between Edmonton and Lindbrook.
40ish mins long drive... to the Lindbrook "centre".
But if Gordon lived in downtown Edmonton, and ended up somewhere along Range Road 220 (red line) then it's just about 20 minutes.
Orange circle is roughly 5 minutes long drive from the likely location of abandoned farm. Red circle would be roughly 2 minutes.
And this "peculiar incident" happened somewhere there, in January.
View attachment 352906
That exact crossroad look pretty similar to what they showed in the vid but unless their recording was kinda old, it's not the same place.
View attachment 352908
If it's indeed there, then abandoned property was right next to the Cooking Lake.
Which means... somewhere here:
View attachment 352910
Likely no neighbours who could notice anything out of ordinary... but also no way that wind could take away snow from that road.
Very interesting find!I've recently bought a newspapers.com subscription, and so have been searching through newspapers looking for unrevealed info about UIDs, when I found something somewhat concerning possibly about Gordon.
View attachment 534236
This article from the Edmonton Journal (dated Feb 27, 1970) says the following. I don't want to cast aspersions on this poor man's image, but I do wonder if it's the same guy. Gordon, born Oct 22, 1950, would be the right age (19) for when this article was written, and we know he lived in Edmonton and was born in Manitoba, where the offense occurred. Accidentally changing "Edwin" to "Edward" seems like it could be a typo. What do you guys think? Could this have been the motive behind such a brutal killing if it is the same person?
I always wondered whether it was a revenge slaying specifically sexual offence considering the mutilation of his genitals.I've recently bought a newspapers.com subscription, and so have been searching through newspapers looking for unrevealed info about UIDs, when I found something somewhat concerning possibly about Gordon.
View attachment 534236
This article from the Edmonton Journal (dated Feb 27, 1970) says the following. I don't want to cast aspersions on this poor man's image, but I do wonder if it's the same guy. Gordon, born Oct 22, 1950, would be the right age (19) for when this article was written, and we know he lived in Edmonton and was born in Manitoba, where the offense occurred. Accidentally changing "Edwin" to "Edward" seems like it could be a typo. What do you guys think? Could this have been the motive behind such a brutal killing if it is the same person?
Not necessarily imo. If the above article is indeed him, he could've very well been a repeat offender. Say he got out of prison, opportunistically re-offended but messed with the wrong guy's kid this time, and paid the price for it once the kid told her dad. Or something like that. The theoretical offence that potentially led to his theoretical revenge killing might not have been reported in any official manner. Thus police would have no knowledge of the crime as the "punishment"/"justice" was dealt with solely by the victim's family and kept hush-hush. And after nearly 50 years, I doubt anyone is gonna come forward and say "oh, yeah, my dad/uncle/brother/whatever was the one who killed this guy". Am I making sense? Not sure if I got my point across well enough. Sleep-deprived and brain-fogged.I always wondered whether it was a revenge slaying specifically sexual offence considering the mutilation of his genitals.
If it was it would be easy to focus on those individuals who would have a reason to do so.
That's always a possibility but by and large most family members would want the perp caught. Besides he may have had other victims. How many parents would go that route? Very few, I would think, and the level of violence inflicted on this guy meant whoever did it, enjoyed it and if they enjoyed it, I wouldn't be surprised they'd done something like that before. If his death was related to the sexual assault of a young white girl, I think it's highly likely that many people tortured and murdered him mainly because he was aboriginal and I'd bet the girl was not. Because the cold hard truth is that sexual assaults that take place on indigenous lands and reservations is about 10 times higher than the national average. And because of that higher average, and the girl was indigenous, I doubt anyone from a reserve would be killing the perpetrator. The link below is from a year ago. You can imagine what it was like 50 years ago.Not necessarily imo. If the above article is indeed him, he could've very well been a repeat offender. Say he got out of prison, opportunistically re-offended but messed with the wrong guy's kid this time, and paid the price for it once the kid told her dad. Or something like that. The theoretical offence that potentially led to his theoretical revenge killing might not have been reported in any official manner. Thus police would have no knowledge of the crime as the "punishment"/"justice" was dealt with solely by the victim's family and kept hush-hush. And after nearly 50 years, I doubt anyone is gonna come forward and say "oh, yeah, my dad/uncle/brother/whatever was the one who killed this guy". Am I making sense? Not sure if I got my point across well enough. Sleep-deprived and brain-fogged.
JMO of course. Theory and wild speculation.
This seems an opportune moment to ask a question I've had for a long time time about the rate of murdered and missing native/indigenous women in North America, which is whether this is essentially an issue of native on native violence, and therefore an issue with native culture, or whether it is one of white on native violence, and therefore one of racism. Or is it more nuanced than that? I would imagine that matters which occur on indigenous land would be primarily native on native, but that outside of those lands the issue is more mixed.Because the cold hard truth is that sexual assaults that take place on indigenous lands and reservations is about 10 times higher than the national average.
It's more nuanced than that. I would say that a lot of the violence that happens on reserves is domestic in nature meaning that the violence inflicted on women in general is from those living on the reserve. There is lack of hope, lack of resources, lack of self respect for many of the inhabitants. Some reserves in northern communities have been on a boil water warning for years or they use bottled water. Why is that?This seems an opportune moment to ask a question I've had for a long time time about the rate of murdered and missing native/indigenous women in North America, which is whether this is essentially an issue of native on native violence, and therefore an issue with native culture, or whether it is one of white on native violence, and therefore one of racism. Or is it more nuanced than that? I would imagine that matters which occur on indigenous land would be primarily native on native, but that outside of those lands the issue is more mixed.
Thank you for so comprehensive a response. It's really helpful in understanding something of the background or potential background to cases like this. I would imagine that actual experiences on the ground for indigenous peoples varied due to the interplay between federal policies and practices and those of individual states/provinces across both the US and Canada.It's more nuanced than that. I would say that a lot of the violence that happens on reserves is domestic in nature meaning that the violence inflicted on women in general is from those living on the reserve. There is lack of hope, lack of resources, lack of self respect for many of the inhabitants. Some reserves in northern communities have been on a boil water warning for years or they use bottled water. Why is that?
Googling through several websites, including findagrave etc. seems to suggest that name "Gordon (x) Sanderson" it's not exactly rare. It's not John Smith, but I stumbled on two Gordon (x) Sanderson's who seemed to live in Edmonton in 70s and were of the right age. Neither of them had a second name starting with letter E. so it's not indicating anything more than it could be either way.I've recently bought a newspapers.com subscription, and so have been searching through newspapers looking for unrevealed info about UIDs, when I found something somewhat concerning possibly about Gordon.
View attachment 534236
This article from the Edmonton Journal (dated Feb 27, 1970) says the following. I don't want to cast aspersions on this poor man's image, but I do wonder if it's the same guy. Gordon, born Oct 22, 1950, would be the right age (19) for when this article was written, and we know he lived in Edmonton and was born in Manitoba, where the offense occurred. Accidentally changing "Edwin" to "Edward" seems like it could be a typo. What do you guys think? Could this have been the motive behind such a brutal killing if it is the same person?