GUILTY Canada - Diane Werendowicz, 23, raped & murdered, Hamilton, Ont, June 1981

[deugirtni]

Seems to me the ex's father was out money too wasn't he?

i think so? i found it a bit confusing. Wasn't the house sold only because the ex's dad wanted repayment of a loan, and the woman was packing to move.. the ex already having moved out because they were separated? And so the sale didn't end up closing due to it going up in flames before closing date? But wouldn't it have been insured and therefore wouldn't he have still received his money in the end? Didn't it almost sound as if the woman must have been deceased before being hung, if the noose had slipped up around her face, and the dead weight couldn't hold her in that position she had originally been placed in? I got the impression that all of those years, they had been hoping that the ex's girlfriend would fess up on her alibi, which never happened. Who else would want her dead? Since it seemed to be not a great job at making it appear to be a hanging, could it have been done BY a woman?

 

[deugirtni]

So far, does anyone here know how they would vote if they were on the jury?

There isn't enough circumstantial evidence from what i have heard/read in this case, for me to find him guilty of either rape or murder, even hearing the things the jury won't hear, and having access to previous trial information.

If I was a jury member and I found out after the fact that the boyfriend's semen had been found in her panties, I would have a lot of questions that could never be answered, and i'd be upset at not having heard about that and why he couldn't have been questioned as to how and when it got there. To me, that is a major piece of evidence which was completely dismissed as being invalid somehow.

I am also really shocked that today's technology cannot take that recording and compare it to RB, CV, BM, and even some of RB's coworkers, even years later, to get a definitive answer as to whether it was or wasn't any of those particular people. Sometimes it seems like we're so advanced, but yet we're not. At the same time, I'm not even convinced that even if they discovered who had made the call, that it would prove the caller was also the murderer.

I would have liked to have heard a lot more on those other possibilities, who had been ruled inadmissible. I feel like so much has been left out, as if there are all kinds of secrets, such as... was she pregnant at the time.. or had she earlier been pregnant and what happened with that, or was it a rumour, etc. Where did RB live at the time, why hasn't it been confirmed one way or another - so far, to me, it sounds like he moved there when he married TH. Did any of DW's friends know of her as being someone who might get picked up for a casual one-night stand, but that stuff seems to be inadmissible. It looks to me as if that 'forest' right behind the building, now that i know DW was murdered right there, could have been an area where people, perhaps neighbouring people, walked their dogs, or took walks, or made out, or partied, or used as a shortcut, and i wonder if the caller could have been there for one of those reasons and have seen DW before the tire was put on her, or perhaps have even seen her get killed, but 'didn't want to get involved'. I believe there were 2 combs found, but yet I believe I read that neither of them were checked for whose DNA may have been on them. No samples or prints from the butts or the empties found nearby. So much of this seems so not okay to me. jmo. What about the rest?

 

[Claroon]

There isn't enough circumstantial evidence from what i have heard/read in this case, for me to find him guilty of either rape or murder, even hearing the things the jury won't hear, and having access to previous trial information.

If I was a jury member and I found out after the fact that the boyfriend's semen had been found in her panties, I would have a lot of questions that could never be answered, and i'd be upset at not having heard about that and why he couldn't have been questioned as to how and when it got there. To me, that is a major piece of evidence which was completely dismissed as being invalid somehow.

I am also really shocked that today's technology cannot take that recording and compare it to RB, CV, BM, and even some of RB's coworkers, even years later, to get a definitive answer as to whether it was or wasn't any of those particular people. Sometimes it seems like we're so advanced, but yet we're not. At the same time, I'm not even convinced that even if they discovered who had made the call, that it would prove the caller was also the murderer.

I would have liked to have heard a lot more on those other possibilities, who had been ruled inadmissible. I feel like so much has been left out, as if there are all kinds of secrets, such as... was she pregnant at the time.. or had she earlier been pregnant and what happened with that, or was it a rumour, etc. Where did RB live at the time, why hasn't it been confirmed one way or another - so far, to me, it sounds like he moved there when he married TH. Did any of DW's friends know of her as being someone who might get picked up for a casual one-night stand, but that stuff seems to be inadmissible. It looks to me as if that 'forest' right behind the building, now that i know DW was murdered right there, could have been an area where people, perhaps neighbouring people, walked their dogs, or took walks, or made out, or partied, or used as a shortcut, and i wonder if the caller could have been there for one of those reasons and have seen DW before the tire was put on her, or perhaps have even seen her get killed, but 'didn't want to get involved'. I believe there were 2 combs found, but yet I believe I read that neither of them were checked for whose DNA may have been on them. No samples or prints from the butts or the empties found nearby. So much of this seems so not okay to me. jmo. What about the rest?

Would you then say not guilty? Or that you're undecided?

I wondered if the audio comparison can't be made because you can't compare a 58 yr old man's voice with the voice of a 22 yr old man?

But I do tend to agree with most of your points now that we sleuthed them. Add on to it he went to work the next day which doesn't fit what killers usually do from what I've read.

I do believe he was a creepy stalker who took advantage (I feel) of drunk women, and probably has a problem setting boundaries of right and wrong and maybe has a sexual addiction.

I think a lot points to him and a jury would have a problem putting him away for life, but it is the judge who decides on the sentence. I don't know if he can overrule the life sentence rule or not.

I wish judges couldn't rule out so much and I wish people who really knew him would come forward and be given the chance to talk. I read in one of the last cases, one juror said they wanted to know more about who this guy was.

 

[Claroon]

i think so? i found it a bit confusing. Wasn't the house sold only because the ex's dad wanted repayment of a loan, and the woman was packing to move.. the ex already having moved out because they were separated? And so the sale didn't end up closing due to it going up in flames before closing date? But wouldn't it have been insured and therefore wouldn't he have still received his money in the end? Didn't it almost sound as if the woman must have been deceased before being hung, if the noose had slipped up around her face, and the dead weight couldn't hold her in that position she had originally been placed in? I got the impression that all of those years, they had been hoping that the ex's girlfriend would fess up on her alibi, which never happened. Who else would want her dead? Since it seemed to be not a great job at making it appear to be a hanging, could it have been done BY a woman?

Well I posted it because it seemed coincidental Hrab got the case in '97 right around the time he was investigating RB and BM. I wondered if he thought it was one of them. They would have been easily in that area and maybe even gone to the same bar. But the evidence probably ends there. I recall BM saying there were a couple more women he attacked that he didn't confess to.

 

[deugirtni]

Would you then say not guilty? Or that you're undecided?

I wondered if the audio comparison can't be made because you can't compare a 58 yr old man's voice with the voice of a 22 yr old man?

But I do tend to agree with most of your points now that we sleuthed them. Add on to it he went to work the next day which doesn't fit what killers usually do from what I've read.

I do believe he was a creepy stalker who took advantage (I feel) of drunk women, and probably has a problem setting boundaries of right and wrong and maybe has a sexual addiction.

I think a lot points to him and a jury would have a problem putting him away for life, but it is the judge who decides on the sentence. I don't know if he can overrule the life sentence rule or not.

I wish judges couldn't rule out so much and I wish people who really knew him would come forward and be given the chance to talk. I read in one of the last cases, one juror said they wanted to know more about who this guy was.

I have read at least a couple of times, SC writing something to the effect of, 'at least one juror was convinced he wasn't guilty'. I hate the slant that reporters are allowed to put on any given case. As much as there had to have been at least one juror who was convinced he *wasn't* guilty, it is also possible that there may have been only *one* juror who believed that he *was* guilty. SC isn't privy to the voting results of the jury in the last 2 trials. For all she knows, there could have been 11 jurors who voted 'not guilty'.

At the second trial, Adler and Bytensky convinced at least one juror their client might be innocent, making a unanimous decision impossible and resulting in a hung jury.

They managed to do it again at the third trial.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4834000-clairmont-badgerow-and-defence-team-split/

 

[deugirtni]

.... I think a lot points to him and a jury would have a problem putting him away for life, but it is the judge who decides on the sentence. I don't know if he can overrule the life sentence rule or not. ....

A first degree murder conviction comes with an automatic 'life sentence' with no chance of parole for at least 25 years. i'm sure in this case, RB's previous 11 years served would be deducted from that 25 years. jmo. If 2nd degree, it also comes with an automatic 'life sentence', but with no chance of parole for at least 10 years.

 

[Claroon]

I have read at least a couple of times, SC writing something to the effect of, 'at least one juror was convinced he wasn't guilty'. I hate the slant that reporters are allowed to put on any given case. As much as there had to have been at least one juror who was convinced he *wasn't* guilty, it is also possible that there may have been only *one* juror who believed that he *was* guilty. SC isn't privy to the voting results of the jury in the last 2 trials. For all she knows, there could have been 11 jurors who voted 'not guilty'.


http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4834000-clairmont-badgerow-and-defence-team-split/

I sort of came to the same conclusion in that she's speculating hung jury meant at least 1 was hung up, but as you say there could have been 11 hung up.

What is the chance of him getting 2nd degree?

 

[deugirtni]

I sort of came to the same conclusion in that she's speculating hung jury meant at least 1 was hung up, but as you say there could have been 11 hung up.

What is the chance of him getting 2nd degree?

When they first found the body, and after autopsy, they knew the woman had recently had semen deposited into her body before death. Since she had also been found murdered, they assumed the sex must have been by rape.

Seventeen years later, they determined whose semen was inside her (and also determined whose semen was inside her panties (a different donor!)). When questioned, the one donor admitted to having consensual sex with her on that evening. There was no physical evidence of rape. They have to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that rape and murder were during the same occurrence in order for it to be 'first degree murder'. They can't seem to prove rape, and they also can't seem to prove murder, imho, so how could it be 'first degree'? *If* they could have proven murder, but not rape, then it would have been second degree murder. And if he had been convicted of second degree murder, he would have received 'life' with no possibility of parole until at least 10 years had passed. RB has already served almost 11 years in custody, without them ever having proven anything.

Due to appeal process, hung juries, and their decision to allow the phone booth location evidence at this trial, he is currently being tried for the FOURTH time on same charges. Since RB was admittedly the last person to have been known to have seen her alive, it would follow that he would be suspected of her murder. But since they can't prove rape, then how could they expect more than second degree? And if that, then he's already served the term that he would have received. And that is even *if* they could have proven murder, which they haven't. What a waste of tax dollars, imho.

 

[deugirtni]

I sort of came to the same conclusion in that she's speculating hung jury meant at least 1 was hung up, but as you say there could have been 11 hung up.

What is the chance of him getting 2nd degree?

In that case, it wouldn't have been '11 hung up', but rather, it still would have been, '1 hung up', but in the opposite direction.

 

[Claroon]

CV has practically no digital footprint which like they say on TV "it's like he doesn't exist." Probably pissed they caught him on camera. Hope they trailed him. IMO

 

[Claroon]

Worst part of this trial is unlike TV shows we aren't going to find out who did it for real. As RB says only he, God, and DW know what happened, but he should have added in "and the killer".

 

[Typhoo1961]

When they first found the body, and after autopsy, they knew the woman had recently had semen deposited into her body before death. Since she had also been found murdered, they assumed the sex must have been by rape.

Seventeen years later, they determined whose semen was inside her (and also determined whose semen was inside her panties (a different donor!)). When questioned, the one donor admitted to having consensual sex with her on that evening. There was no physical evidence of rape. They have to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that rape and murder were during the same occurrence in order for it to be 'first degree murder'. They can't seem to prove rape, and they also can't seem to prove murder, imho, so how could it be 'first degree'? *If* they could have proven murder, but not rape, then it would have been second degree murder. And if he had been convicted of second degree murder, he would have received 'life' with no possibility of parole until at least 10 years had passed. RB has already served almost 11 years in custody, without them ever having proven anything.

Due to appeal process, hung juries, and their decision to allow the phone booth location evidence at this trial, he is currently being tried for the FOURTH time on same charges. Since RB was admittedly the last person to have been known to have seen her alive, it would follow that he would be suspected of her murder. But since they can't prove rape, then how could they expect more than second degree? And if that, then he's already served the term that he would have received. And that is even *if* they could have proven murder, which they haven't. What a waste of tax dollars, imho.

Being the last person to see her alive does not prove that he murdered her. I can see why the jury is having difficulties.

 

[dotr]

Stranger things have happened, but it is quite coincidental that DW was found with RB's dna inside her, that the voice on the 911 call not only sounded like RB, but also came from a phone booth beside his workplace and he had been previously accused of rape.

Poor woman, murdered and left defiled for all to see, her personal life open for all to know, after several days of long work hours spent catering to the needs of others, just prior to what should have been enjoyable birthday celebrations.
Not even quite 24 years old, what a crying shame, hope they nail the right person responsible for Diane's horrible death.
imo, speculation.

 

[deugirtni]

Stranger things have happened, but it is quite coincidental that DW was found with RB's dna inside her, that the voice on the 911 call not only sounded like RB, but also came from a phone booth beside his workplace and he had been previously accused of rape.

Poor woman, murdered and left defiled for all to see, her personal life open for all to know, after several days of long work hours spent catering to the needs of others, just prior to what should have been enjoyable birthday celebrations.
Not even quite 24 years old, what a crying shame, hope they nail the right person responsible for Diane's horrible death.
imo, speculation.

The thing with all of that though, is that hamilton was very much 'steel town' back in 1981.. sooo many of the men in the city at that time were also employed at the steel mills.. and the voice was also positively identified as being other men's voices, and also said to have NOT been RB's voice by other people who knew him. And he hadn't been previously accused of rape, had he? If you are referring to DR, that happened a few weeks later, and wasn't a rape. Although she identified RB's photograph as being her attacker, it was an old image and he didn't look like that any more, at the time of the attack. The case got dropped. And not to mention that it seems from the timing, that he could not have been her attacker. The only reason he ultimately got charged in the DR attack was because his DNA was found to have been inside DW when she died. Seventeen years they waited to charge him in that attack because it hadn't made sense to have been him, until then, when it would give more credence to their case.

Another thing to perhaps think about.. is that it seems it is unlikely that a man would commit such a rape and murder as his first offence. At the time of DW's murder, there was apparently a 'ravine rapist' on the loose. Seventeen years later when they arrested RB for both of those attacks, one might expect that more women may have identified him from newspaper photos at the time, to say that he had also attacked them. It doesn't seem that we've heard of any such accusations.

It seems that it would be impossible at this point to accuse anyone else, but it would sure be interesting to know why the other potential POIs in this case were ruled out. Or were they just simply not pursued because there seemed to be a better candidate? But no, that can't be true since they didn't have that better candidate until 17 years after the fact. How did CV escape with such a loose alibi when his DNA was found in her panties but yet he hadn't seen her for a week. Or over half a week, depending which it was.

 

[dotr]

The case seems to be a series of oddly connected twists and turns with a number of potential suspects, no wonder there have been an unprecedented afaik, 4 trials.

Wondering if the " ravine rapist " ever committed similar crimes in Toronto and then slipped back to Hamilton.?
imo, speculation.

 

[deugirtni]

Weird how there is virtually zero information on 'the ravine rapes'. i guess MSM wasn't online at the time, but you'd think there would be *something* about that if it was a problem that spanned years.

 

[Claroon]

Weird how there is virtually zero information on 'the ravine rapes'. i guess MSM wasn't online at the time, but you'd think there would be *something* about that if it was a problem that spanned years.

I found this a few days ago on one of DR's testimonies, maybe in the eBook as I had to make it a snipped jpeg.

Implying the rapes were after DR's attack.

 

[deugirtni]

I found this a few days ago on one of DR's testimonies, maybe in the eBook as I had to make it a snipped jpeg.

Implying the rapes were after DR's attack.

Like I said, virtually zero information on the ravine rapes. This seems to be just a reporter taking advantage of her position as a public writer to tell the public that she believes RB was the 'ravine rapist' even though he was never charged and never given an opportunity to defend that accusation.

 

[Claroon]

From today's SC trial Tweets:

"Miller is 5 foot 11 inches, two inches taller than Diane, which fits the witnesses' description."

Interesting the 5 ft 11 part. Maybe that's why the caller said 5 ft 11 in describing DW - he stumbled thinking of his own height. Second, this is the first I've heard of a "witness."

Last night I watched forensic files. The killer was reading a script over the phone to the parents of a girl he murdered. When he got to reading the time on his script, he inadvertently said the real time he murdered her, not the fake time he had in the script. He stumbled and corrected himself. That type of thing may have happened here. Speculating.

 

[Claroon]

Was also thinking/wondering two things which might have been brought up before--

a) did LE not look for tire tracks in the area? and
b) they say she was dragged, but they didn't say from where.