Canada - Lucas Fowler, Chynna Deese, and Leonard Dyck, all murdered, Alaska Hwy, BC, Jul 2019 #19

[raffielle]

How long do these no contact orders or restraining orders last? Isn’t there an expiry of sorts and a person would have to reapply to have them in place after a certain time?

I had to renew my every year and the court system determined if they were still required not me, but did take into account my safety and state of mind. I live in BC so the same would apply to them.

 

[ktm44]

BBM above
I am not sure what you mean by not knowing about the Mcleods viewing the video has anything to do with her clients rights.

She was retained in late August but I don’t know if she pursued him or he pursued her.

I would imagine that AS would like to contribute to his sons burial etc. If he knew where to contact he probably would (doesn’t have to be the family directly to make a payment). It was mentioned he can’t even lay flowers for his son because he had no idea where that would be. It’s cruel. I have much empathy for him.

I feel sorry for him too but I also feel that his handling of the situation was as improper as the rest of his actions throughout this.

The article I quoted indicated that the lawyer had no idea if the McLeod family had seen the video, but felt her client should. Based on that comment, I'm somewhat confused as to why she would feel her client's rights trump other family members, considering it's evidence in a criminal investigation.

I doubt very much if viewing the brief video has allowed AS to know where his son is buried, if he's buried and where he can visit with flowers but I would suggest that while he and his lawyer were busy threatening litigation to see the video, a lest scorched earth approach may have gotten access to the video and possibly the RCMP may have been able to work with him to find where his son is buried or if he's been buried.

My only real point is that AS is quite fond of using the media to his advantage, which is not always in his best interests. If his relationship with his son was as close as he suggests, it would also be in the RCMP's best interests to ensure he wasn't aiding and abetting his son before they provide him with inside information.

 

[NJSleuth91]

Leamon is an abitious lawyer. If she's unsure if McLeod's family had seen the video, I'm not convinced she had any legal reason to litigate to ensure her client viewed something others may have not.

SBM

It sounds to me like both families viewed the video.
Northern BC Murder Suspects Recorded a Video Before Suicide: Report
"McLeod and Schmegelsky apparently recorded the video message on a phone before taking their own lives in northern Manitoba. The Star Vancouver reports that the RCMP showed family members about 30 seconds of the video. According to the Star, McLeod and Schmegelsky detailed their wishes for their remains. It was a goodbye, and a "last will and testament," a family member who did not see the video firsthand told the Star."

It sounds like both of them detailed their last wishes (probably to be buried together, I'm guessing) so it wouldn't make sense to just show it to one of the families.

But since she's a lawyer, if she can't 100% confirm that the McLeods saw the video, she's going to say she's unsure. That's just how lawyers are.

<modsnip: quoted post was removed>

 

[katydid23]

A car radio in a RAV4 isn’t a complicated device and it auto scans available radio stations. It simpler to operate than an iPhone. Two of the three Gillam stations are talk/news - no music - which also broadcast across Canada through a multitude of stations. One of them I’m very familiar with is Corus, which also features many call-in segments, people talking about news happenings. News is cycled continuously.

Yes. I think it would be more surprising if they didn't listen to the car radio in an effort to find out what was known about the crimes. JMO

This was their adventure, their mission <modsnip: snipped to avoid confusion>. In order to 'win the game' they needed to understands the current rules.

 

[sandbar]

Yes. I think it would be more surprising if they didn't listen to the car radio in an effort to find out what was known about the crimes. JMO

This was their adventure, their mission <modsnip: snipped to avoid confusion>. In order to 'win the game' they needed to understands the current rules.

I just can't picture K&B listening to the radio.

I can see them in the game though, and if they were in it for the thrill of it, not knowing how close or who was chasing you might be even more thrilling.

ETA I think they wanted a suicide by cop, or blaze of glory, an encounter with LE.

and,

We'll likely never know...

 

[sprucetip]

With no mobile services available for such long distances, do the locals simply hope for the best or use radio or satellite phones or something else to communicate? I (personally) would not be setting out on a road trip where there was absolutely no way to communicate for over 1000 k's if I needed help.

It’s normal up here and people have survived long road trips without cell service before it existed. You go on trips prepared and in areas like this where everyone knows there is no service, you go out of your way to help others if you see vehicles broken down.

I commute daily on the Alaska Highway in an area with no service. I’ve broken down numerous times and have had people stop and help every time. I’ve also helped others. It’s really not that big a deal. Sure it would be great to have service everywhere! And safer, quicker response times, etc. But apparently it’s not a gov’t priority.

 

[Sillybilly]

Thread is closed until tomorrow.

The next member to start speculating on a Nazi revenge conspiracy theory (resulting in a major thread cleanup of over 80 posts) will be banned from this thread.

 

[CocoChanel]

This thread is closed until we have the manpower to open it.
Repeated requests to moderators through alerts will not help it reopen it any faster. If it is closed, there is a reason. Trust the process please.

 

[Sillybilly]

This thread is open again. If another major cleanup is necessary or we get too busy to deal with the Alerts, the thread will be closed until there is discussion worthy news.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

I'm wondering if the charge for LD will get bumped up to a 1st degree murder charge.

The criminal code states: murder is first degree murder when it is planned and deliberate.

I know some people think it possibly wasn't planned so will stay 2nd, but after killing two people and gun-toting on the highway, I find it hard to believe they introduced themselves to LD with good will.

I think they were "deliberately" looking for an easy target for a vehicle and they obviously must have discussed this idea and "planned" before proceeding. So might be considered planned and deliberate.

I think they used 2nd degree possibly to just get the warrants out as that's all they could prove at the time.

 

[Seattle1]

I'm wondering if the charge for LD will get bumped up to a 1st degree murder charge.

The criminal code states: murder is first degree murder when it is planned and deliberate.

I know some people think it possibly wasn't planned so will stay 2nd, but after killing two people and gun-toting on the highway, I find it hard to believe they introduced themselves to LD with good will.

I think they were "deliberately" looking for an easy target for a vehicle and they obviously must have discussed this idea and "planned" before proceeding. So might be considered planned and deliberate.

I think they used 2nd degree possibly to just get the warrants out as that's all they could prove at the time.

I don't believe deceased suspects can be prosecuted, and therefore RCMP will not make a charging decision in respect of a suspect who is deceased.

I also don't think they can make hypothetical charges either such as amend a charge from 2nd degree to first degree.

At least in England, and I believe USA too.

Do you know different about Canada?

 

[elondriel]

I'm wondering if the charge for LD will get bumped up to a 1st degree murder charge.

The criminal code states: murder is first degree murder when it is planned and deliberate.

I know some people think it possibly wasn't planned so will stay 2nd, but after killing two people and gun-toting on the highway, I find it hard to believe they introduced themselves to LD with good will.

I think they were "deliberately" looking for an easy target for a vehicle and they obviously must have discussed this idea and "planned" before proceeding. So might be considered planned and deliberate.

I think they used 2nd degree possibly to just get the warrants out as that's all they could prove at the time.

Definitely agree with what you are saying and had they lived and gone to trial there would have been a good chance that is what they would have done. However, now that they are gone I believe no charges can be made.

 

[Sillybilly]

I'm wondering if the charge for LD will get bumped up to a 1st degree murder charge.

<rsbm>

In order for there to be a criminal trial, there has to be a defendant. As both the accused are deceased, there will probably be a motion by the Crown to withdraw the charges.

No link but I have personally known of a case where the defendant in a criminal matter died before trial and the case was simply dropped upon motion to the court from the defendant's lawyer.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Definitely agree with what you are saying and had they lived and gone to trial there would have been a good chance that is what they would have done. However, now that they are gone I believe no charges can be made.

I guess all charges get dropped with death then? I have no idea!

I know no trial would happen, so I guess no trial=no proving they were killers, but wouldn't they need something to close the case or documentation? Again, no idea. I might go search online how common it is when suspects die before trial.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

I don't believe deceased suspects can be prosecuted, and therefore RCMP will not make a charging decision in respect of a suspect who is deceased.

I also don't think they can make hypothetical charges either such as amend a charge from 2nd degree to first degree.

At least in England, and I believe USA too.

Do you know different about Canada?

Yes, I was wondering as they are deceased. I wonder what happens with evidence, documentation, etc.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

<rsbm>

In order for there to be a criminal trial, there has to be a defendant. As both the accused are deceased, there will probably be a motion by the Crown to withdraw the charges.

No link but I have personally known of a case where the defendant in a criminal matter died before trial and the case was simply dropped upon motion to the court from the defendant's lawyer.

Thanks Sillybilly, that's what I'm curious about. This doesn't seem fair that charges are withdrawn. I get no trial, but seems like no justice if none of this is presented but I guess that's what a "final report" type thing might be for.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

After a hasty search I found this so far (article referencing B&K). Still wonder if charges pertain in this documentation process?:

"Deceased suspects can't be put on trial. In most criminal cases, a public trial is the place where details of the crime are brought to light. Documents, including photos and video, are part of most cases, and they can be accessed by members of the public and the media.

Crown prosecutors and defence lawyers present their arguments and describe their version of what took place. And witnesses — including police — recount what they observed.

Without a trial, there's no certainty any of that information will ever reach the public."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/brit...learn-more-about-triple-murder-case-1.5241103

ETA: Police can't consider the case closed until a Crown attorney decides if there was sufficient evidence to lay charges — even if the suspects are dead.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

And this, sorry should've included in previous post ^:

Will there be an inquest?
In lieu of a criminal trial, a coroners' service can announce an inquest, another kind of formal court proceeding where witness testimony, documents and police accounts are considered by a jury and made public.

Watson said the three deaths in northern B.C. don't meet the requirements for a mandatory coroner's inquest, which can make recommendations that could prevent similar deaths in the future — not find fault or lay blame. An inquest is mandatory if the deceased was in the care or control of a peace officer when he or she died.

However, B.C.'s chief coroner, Lisa Lapointe, can choose to hold an inquest if she determines it would be beneficial to address community concern, assist in finding information about the victims or the circumstances surrounding their death, according to Watson.

Lapointe has not announced an inquest into the three B.C. deaths.

Bruce Pitt-Payne, a retired RCMP investigator who now does consulting and training work, said a coroner's inquest could actually reveal more information than a trial.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/brit...learn-more-about-triple-murder-case-1.5241103

 

[Seattle1]

Yes, I was wondering as they are deceased. I wonder what happens with evidence, documentation, etc.

According to the police statement below, RCMP is committed to creating a report with the totality of the investigations, and will share it first with the families, and later the release to the public. I imagine once their report complete, they will archive any evidence according to policy.

RCMP: Teen suspects in northern B.C. murders died by suicide, with guns found nearby

The B.C. RCMP have engaged the force’s Behavioural Analysis Unit and Mounties will review all the evidence and timelines, said the police statement.

“The B.C. RCMP commits that once we have completed that review within the next few weeks, we will be providing the families with an update with respect to the totality of the investigations and then releasing the information publicly,” said the statement.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Yes, I was wondering as they are deceased. I wonder what happens with evidence, documentation, etc.

Imo, an inquest into the deaths of each victim would allocate blame to K & B, but first, the RCMP would have to produce evidence that K & B are responsible before the inquests are held. There would be an inquest into the deaths of K & B too because it is suicide. There were no witnesses to any of the deaths of these victims or suspects, so it'd be in the family and public's interest to hold an inquest and close it.


An inquest is a public hearing conducted by a coroner before a jury of five community members. Inquests are held for the purpose of informing the public about the circumstances of a death. Although the jury’s conclusions are not binding, it is hoped that any recommendations suggested, if implemented, will prevent further deaths.

......
The inquest has its origins in 11th century England. When a body was found, a representative of the Crown had to decide five things:

• Who was the deceased?
• Where did he or she die?
• When did he or she die?
• How did he or she die?
• Who was to blame?

(Note: blame can no longer be assigned by inquest)

The five questions
There are five questions that must be answered when investigating a death:

• Who was the deceased?
• Where did the death occur?
• When did the death occur?
• How did the death occur (i.e. the medical cause)?
• By what means did the death occur?(i.e. the classification or manner of death: natural, suicide, accident, homicide or undetermined)
  Discretionary inquests may be held when:
  
  
  • the coroner determines that enough information is known from death investigation to support an inquest
  • the coroner decides that it is desirable for the public to have an open and full hearing of the circumstance of a death
  • if the coroner believes a jury could make useful recommendations to prevent further deaths
  A relative of a deceased may request an inquest by submitting a request in writing to the investigating coroner. The request will be presented to the Regional Supervising Coroners management team to determine whether an inquest should be conducted.
  
  There is no time limit between the date of death and the convening of an inquest.
  
  An inquest is NOT an adversarial process. It is also neither a trial, nor a process for discovery. It is not a royal commission, a campaign or crusade directed by personal or philosophical agendas. An inquest is an inquisitorial process designed to focus public attention on the circumstances of a death.

Inquests | Ministry of the Solicitor General