Canada - Lucas Fowler, Chynna Deese, and Leonard Dyck, all murdered, Alaska Hwy, BC, Jul 2019 #13

[Zella]

I feel like if it were for the thrill they would have continued killing people along the way. Obviously just my thoughts, but it seems off to me that they would simply run and hide half way across the country without leaving more bodies along the way if they were on a thrill kill spree.

I've wondered about this, as well, and have a few theories but it's hard to know without knowing more. I think it is possible they never again encountered anyone who was alone at night on the side of the road, which seemed to be their MO, but I also think something about killing LD may have freaked them out and put an end to it. Then they just went into flight mode.

 

[sandbar]

I know the routes.
There is a general time of death for L and C. Not really for LD though(unless I have missed something). Like I said my main issue is that they didn't burn the van. If this was planned and they were destroying evidence along the way they would have burned the van too. If they didn't think of it until after the fact, yeah definitely could be the case.
The fact that there is still another person(and the LAST person to see them alive as far as we know) that was witnessed speaking to C and L still makes me question it all as well.
If it's easy to say that they DID kill them, it's just as easy to say that the DIDN'T at this point. Until we have more info(if ever) I will continue likely continue to look at it that way.

RCMP was asked at the presser if they located that person, and the response was simply "no". The "no" from the officer felt either dismissive, or defensive to me

 

[Zella]

Many people who do terrible things are thought to be nice to those who know them, and I think the same goes for Kam and to a certain extent Bryer. Other young men rejected Bryer for his words and beliefs re - his interest in violence, Hitler, etc...but Kam didn't. Maybe I am being judgmental, but that tells me that there was something off about him too. My opinion of course.

Agreed. I think that KM had a darker side that he kept well-hidden, but that is why he remained so close to BS long after everyone else started avoiding him.

 

[Jessthinkin]

It’s mentioned many times here about KM’s family being well off. Wondering why then he was driving an old beat up truck with that old style camper?

Reminds me of my middle son, who kept asking for a Ford Mustang when he turned 16. “Why not? Why not? Why not?, he’d ask. I’d just reply, ‘because we love you and don’t want you to die in a car crash’. (He finally stopped asking... )
In KM’s case, maybe he’d been envisioning for awhile going on an ‘adventure’ with BS, specifically asking for a truck/camper, and that’s what he got. I don’t subscribe to the philosophy that teenagers should be given the fanciest, most expensive car as their first car, and maybe KM’s parents didn’t either.

 

[Kubirai]

It doesn’t make any sense either why they didn’t take off after the first two murders. Why hang around for days and then torch their truck. I guess that was the beginning of the cat and mouse chase. It was catch me if you can.

They laid low in Yukon, plotted their getaway route, and decided to get a better vehicle.

 

[missy1974]

A man was murdered and his vehicle was stolen. Motive should be crystal clear to everyone who looks at the facts. This wasn't about money, this was about the suspects wanting a vehicle that day, so they murdered a man and took his Rav4.

Robbery was a factor in all three murders. Wallets and ID were stolen from all three victims. A vehicle was stolen from the third victim. Both robberies included eliminating witnesses.

All three murders were opportunistic. That is, they were in isolated locations with no witnesses.

Robbery was definitely a factor, but we don't know it was motive. It's one theory. I know there has been a lot of discussion over the last few weeks about why they took the RAV4, why they stopped at the van, etc. But we don't know anything yet. There are a lot of scenario's that could have happened and until we hear more from RCMP, we can only come up with theories. Maybe they killed LD, then decided to take the RAV4, not killed him for the RAV4. I don't think it's crystal clear at all. JMO

 

[scrappinkat]

So...a real gun would seem likely. Or a point blank, well aimed shot from an airsoft.

There was, at one point, an unblurred photo of Lucas's body circulating on the internet (from Mr Pierre?) I can't vouch for its authenticity, but if it was accurate, then that one shot (even from a pellet gun) could have been fatal.

An airsoft BB gun would not cause damage, even if I was to put the end of the plastic barrel against your arm and pull the trigger it would not enter under the skin. A pellet gun, perhaps could cause damage or penetrate the skin but that’s very different than an airsoft BB gun.

 

[JuneBug67]

Please don't speak for everyone in Canada. I have coworkers who are in their 20's who NEVER listen to the news. There are many who are absolutely clueless as to what's going on in the local news and don't care. I'm sure there are people like this all over the country.

But that's kind of irrelevant to my point anyways. My whole point is not about the terminology surrounding "suspicious deaths" or whether Canadians understand it or not (again, you don't know that "everyone" understands the terminology or its significance), it's the fact that the RCMP took 36 hours to get the info out. Again, the coroner does not need to examine the bodies for the RCMP to warn people in the surrounding area, so there is no excuse for the lag in time getting out some pretty important info to the traveling public.

Do we know where the 36 hour timeline comes from? The release seems to be dated about 24 hours after the earliest time the police could have arrived at the scene, so I’m not clear.

As I’ve said before, I don’t have a final opinion on this yet as I think it’s a complex issue and I don’t have enough information at this point. I do have the opinion however that nobody has yet made a convincing case that RCMP clearly erred. I think when any of us want to challenge something like this we need to justify the arbitrary substitution of our judgement for that of experts in the field, and that justification has to be more substantial than some flavour of “this is what makes sense to ME”.

We can’t know in detail the reasons decisions are made and timelines unfold, but we can assess how they compare to the norm in other situations and identify any clear departure. From that perspective, “suspicious death” is absolutely the standard initial language used across the country and across police forces in situations of foul play with one or more unknowns (unknown victim, unknown cause of death, unknown suspect, unknown circumstances etc.). About a day between first police involvement and public notification of a suspicious death seems to be typical. Difficulty identifying the victims almost certainly delayed next steps. Etc.

So, I’m happy to be convinced, but it hasn’t happened just yet.

 

[NJSleuth91]

I've wondered if one of the pair, I'm thinking BS, had a thrill kill trip in mind, but sold it as a joy ride or even as looking for work. As the trip unfolded and many little decisions later ended up killing the couple, fulfilling his desire, but leaving KM having to manage the situation. Maybe this scenario explains why they hung around the area before committing the next murder for the vehicle out. There was no planning for the aftermath.

If that was the case though, why would Kam throw his life away for something he didn't even do? Bryer didn't even drive and as far as we know the gun wasn't his.

I feel like if it were for the thrill they would have continued killing people along the way. Obviously just my thoughts, but it seems off to me that they would simply run and hide half way across the country without leaving more bodies along the way if they were on a thrill kill spree.

Well that's the part that makes no sense. If Lucas and Chynna's deaths were planned it seems like they could have gotten away with it had they not killed Professor Dyck. They may have even been able to get away with Professor Dyck's death had they not stolen his car and burned their own near the crime scene. Either it was planned and they were idiots and sucked at planning, it was planned as an elaborate suicide mission the entire time (but why not kill more people then?), or it wasn't planned and they freaked out and may have even regretted the murders in the end (which is why they didn't take more people with them on their way out). JMO.

 

[pentimento]

what is the evidence you have to back up your theory?

Again, please reference my original post on the matter. I simply stated that IF there is another party of parties involved in these crimes, then those two dying in the woods is exactly what would be expected. I didn't state that I had a theory, I was just giving consideration to somebody else's theory. Dead men can't speak, and yes there are all kinds of other possibilities, but we just don't simply have the information from the police yet -- or at least I don't have enough information to dismiss other scenarios at this point. I still haven't read all of the flack I got from my post and I really don't plan on it. I've read all kinds of theories that don't ring true to me as well, but I haven't gone after anybody. It's a shame because someone might have some really innovative and good ideas, but won't want to share them because who needs the grief?

 

[Rottiluvr]

[

Huh. When a burned out vehicle is found it is usually because it was stolen and used to commit a crime. So my assumption was that the kids had been murdered by whoever took their vehicle, and that person had decided to acquire a new vehicle, because the one they were in was too hot.

And also, with the other crime scene, when a young couple is found murdered that's usually a sex crime.

Reminds me of my middle son, who kept asking for a Ford Mustang when he turned 16. “Why not? Why not? Why not?, he’d ask. I’d just reply, ‘because we love you and don’t want you to die in a car crash’. (He finally stopped asking... )
In KM’s case, maybe he’d been envisioning for awhile going on an ‘adventure’ with BS, specifically asking for a truck/camper, and that’s what he got. I don’t subscribe to the philosophy that teenagers should be given the fanciest, most expensive car as their first car, and maybe KM’s parents didn’t either.

I never said anything about buying “a fancy” new car....geesh. Just made a comment.

 

[Jessthinkin]

What I see in that video are two young men who know it's Game Over. They look defeated. Bryer looks slightly anxious, Kam looks a bit more focused and determined. He looks as if he did not find what he needed at the store, and knows that was his last chance to find whatever it was.

I agree that they don't look angry. But, if one of them did have a rage attack or two, that would leave that individual potentially depleted and pretty glum.

There's a reason, we just don't know what it is. Obviously, none of us would consider it a good reason, but extensive suicide is real.

I agree, that’s what I saw in the video: KM resigned and defeated, BS nervous and reticent. I read comments from others about how cocky they looked, that they were just flaunting their freedom, purposely getting on camera, but I personally didn’t get that vibe at all either...

 

[Satchie]

[

Huh. When a burned out vehicle is found it is usually because it was stolen and used to commit a crime. So my assumption was that the kids had been murdered by whoever took their vehicle, and that person had decided to acquire a new vehicle, because the one they were in was too hot.

And also, with the other crime scene, when a young couple is found murdered that's usually a sex crime.

I guess in my experience two 19 year men are more likely to be perps than victims. Just demographics.

I agree that a likely motivation for the death of a couple is a sex crime.

 

[10ofRods]

It doesn’t make any sense either why they didn’t take off after the first two murders. Why hang around for days and then torch their truck. I guess that was the beginning of the cat and mouse chase. It was catch me if you can.

I can easily imagine a scenario. They are desperately afraid to get caught. That's a basic feature of antisocial personalities (as compared, say, to people hearing command hallucinations or flying off the handle in a domestic quarrel).

So, they go back and forth, "We can't leave, what if someone saw our truck? They'll catch us right away!" Perhaps one wants to go ahead and take the truck, the other doesn't. Perhaps Kam keeps saying the truck needs to go back to his family and he can't leave it. They both know it contains evidence that will specifically implicate them in the murders. Eventually, they agree to burn the damn truck (now an immediate source of contention between them) after grabbing a new car. The plan to grab the new car reunites them and gives them energy to go on to the next phase.

Whether they discussed it or not, burning the truck and taking the RAV4 was essentially their commitment to joint suicide/potential death by cop. Death pact. That all became necessary after they killed Chynna and Lucas. It was a dramatic ploy, it was not thought out in advance.

I can imagine them weighing out pro's and con's of taking the truck. How much forensic evidence does it contain? Once they start thinking about any of the evidence, it probably becomes clear that the truck is filled with their fingerprints and DNA, no question about it.

It's also a big middle finger to their families and a billboard that says "We aren't coming back peacefully," which may have taken them a couple of days to get to. It was a really final act, they were then willing to die, whenever it happened. I'm sure they at least thought about turning themselves in vs. burning the truck...

 

[KR72]

If that was the case though, why would Kam throw his life away for something he didn't even do? Bryer didn't even drive and as far as we know the gun wasn't his.



Well that's the part that makes no sense. If Lucas and Chynna's deaths were planned it seems like they could have gotten away with it had they not killed Professor Dyck. They may have even been able to get away with Professor Dyck's death had they not stolen his car and burned their own near the crime scene. Either it was planned and they were idiots and sucked at planning, it was planned as an elaborate suicide mission the entire time (but why not kill more people then?), or it wasn't planned and they freaked out and may have even regretted the murders in the end (which is why they didn't take more people with them on their way out). JMO.

Your post reminded me of an interview with a criminologist posted a few threads back. I remember being struck by how he called this "a murderous odyssey," and that there could have been a very loose plan which changed as situations arose. Hence, not burning LF and CD's van, but burning their camper and LD's SUV and even ending up in Gillam.

 

[CanadianMade]

RCMP was asked at the presser if they located that person, and the response was simply "no". The "no" from the officer felt either dismissive, or defensive to me

Yes, it seemed that way to me too which I took to assume that they are simply tired of hearing the same question from the media....though it IS a legitimate question as RCMP themselves are the ones who released that sketch asking for information on that person. What I also find interesting in that press conference is that he stated they have 'significant evidence' linking the murders, but there isn't enough for Crown to charge B and K with the first two.....meaning...not enough evidence to say they are the ones who killed them. If there isn't enough evidence for that, I myself take that to believe there was no DNA, no ballistics. "Significant" to one person could be the opposite to another. If they consider the fact that they could have been in the same area around that time to be significant then that's what they are going on. It's not like they have never assumed someone to be a suspect before and been wrong.

 

[MassGuy]

I agree, that’s what I saw in the video: KM resigned and defeated, BS nervous and reticent. I read comments from others about how cocky they looked, that they were just flaunting their freedom, purposely getting on camera, but I personally didn’t get that vibe at all either...

It’s a short video, one without much context.

I think we should be careful about drawing any conclusions at all.

You can pretty much see what you want to see there.

 

[scrappinkat]

It’s mentioned many times here about KM’s family being well off. Wondering why then he was driving an old beat up truck with that old style camper?

The truck was most likely still worth a fair amount of money, and looked to be in quite good condition. I don’t know about the family financials at all but IMO the truck doesn’t qualify as “an old beat up truck”.

 

[Kiantra]

Reminds me of my middle son, who kept asking for a Ford Mustang when he turned 16. “Why not? Why not? Why not?, he’d ask. I’d just reply, ‘because we love you and don’t want you to die in a car crash’. (He finally stopped asking... )
In KM’s case, maybe he’d been envisioning for awhile going on an ‘adventure’ with BS, specifically asking for a truck/camper, and that’s what he got. I don’t subscribe to the philosophy that teenagers should be given the fanciest, most expensive car as their first car, and maybe KM’s parents didn’t either.

Exactly. BS and KM apparently loved the outdoors, they were so called survivalists, so having use of a Diesel truck and camper was exactly what they wanted.

 

[Jessthinkin]

I never said anything about buying “a fancy” new car....geesh. Just made a comment.

Right, you didn’t mention ‘fancy’, but you said if KM’s family were well-off, then why did they buy him an ‘old’ ‘ beat up’ truck and camper. I apologize if my using the antonym ‘fancy’ wasn’t the one you were thinking of.