Canada - Lucas Fowler, Chynna Deese, and Leonard Dyck, all murdered, Alaska Hwy, BC, Jul 2019 #20

[Trooper]

AS doesn't have a priority on the information. Lets face a bit of reality here. There are other people of whom the priority has greater leverage.
It is highly probable that the information is being relayed and absorbed by Prof Dycks family, the Deese family and the Fowler family, and their questions and concerns being dealt with.


What's more, I would think they would have a bit of a say in when all the information is released as they have possibly distant family they want notified before it is released to the public.,

AS is the father of the alleged killer, not the father of a victim. .. ok I know, I know, that his stated position, 'I'm a victim'... but he is not, in the overall scheme of things.. He is, without doubt, collateral damage of the consequences of his sons actions, no argument there, and he is entitled to some sympathy, up to a point.... but he doesn't have the priority of the RCMP nor should he.

 

[Trooper]

Has anyone besides Mr.Dyck's sister spoke about him? I haven't seen any statements, pictures or anything. Not that they have to show but I just found it a bit odd.

I find it the absolute quintessential normality. So far from being odd as to be infinitely remote. The sister spoke once, and that's that. That's what normal people do, generally. They requested privacy, and it would be the utter height of absurdity for them to break this plan for some unknown and irrational reason.

 

[NJSleuth91]

One of Chynna's siblings was interviewed recently and said they were fine with the report taking longer than expected to come out, as it gave them a reprieve to try to get back to normal life.

But the victims' and suspects' loved ones may be coming at it from different perspectives. The victims are going to be dead either way, so their loved ones may not particularly care what the motive was, especially since it probably won't be a motive that makes sense to any normal person. Either way it's still going to be a senseless and pointless death to them. Chynna's family has made statements saying that they are happy Kam and Bryer died so that they don't have to go through the stress and trauma of a trial, because they believe Kam and Bryer were just evil and would never have shown remorse anyway. So I'm not getting the impression that they are particularly interested in the psychopathology or anything. And that's perfectly their right to feel that way...I think most people in their situation would just want to move on and not have to think about their loved ones' killers.

They also seem to trust that the RCMP got it right and that Kam and Bryer are the killers -- I believe one of Chynna's siblings even said that they believed Kam and Bryer did it even though the evidence hadn't been released. Lucas' family are cops so of course they're going to implicitly trust the police.

From the perspective of the suspects' loved ones though, they have basically been told the RCMP thinks Kam and Bryer killed three people because of reasons. Especially with Lucas and Chynna, no information has been released on what links them to the murders. It is natural for them to be frustrated at the lack of information and want conclusive proof that their loved ones, who had no known history of violence, committed these terrible crimes, and want some answers as to what the hell they were thinking.

Now it does seem that they mostly accept that they probably did it. But of course they're not just going to 100% believe with no evidence that the people that they loved and raised did this. Would any of us in their situation? I wouldn't.

 

[Vern]

Canada is currently a leading research benchmark for custody matters, family court stuff, since they put out a report early in 2019. One of the conclusions, backed up by stats is, that 97% of Canadian men get shared custody, …. 3% are barred from contact for a certain amount of time, and some of that time is on the condition that the non custodial father seeks and receives treatment of a ( I presume ) psychiatric nature, with various times designated to review the decision.

...

Trooper, can you please link in the report of which you write? I can't find any links to a 2019 report (not even on my fed work computer) with statistics like that.

You may be talking custody with "access" (visitation) to kids rather than actual shared custody. The latest federal report I can find is linked below and shared custody here is no where near approaching 97% according to this one. That's quite a turn around in statistics in just a couple years if it's truely at 97% now.

I'd really like to see that report and delve into it.

Canadian Department of Justice Report: Child Custody and Access - JustFacts

 

[Trooper]

If my son was a suspect in a crime like this I would want the most thorough, most meticulous investigation of it that was ever seen in any jurisdiction in the world. Nothing hasty and rushed, for me, thanks. Take acres of time, go over everything, the RCMP owe nothing to anyone except their charter which states they investigate crime , in the matter of time taken to run down every shadow of doubt.
Investigate away.

I would bet , that if the RCMP had released a report say, oh back in Aug 9th, a month ago, as the uncle is on about, there would be someone, plenty of someones to shout out, 'too hasty!. too slapdash! to shonky!... '

 

[Trooper]

Trooper, can you please link in the report of which you write? I can't find any links to a 2019 report (not even on my fed work computer) with statistics like that.

You may be talking custody with "access" (visitation) to kids rather than actual shared custody. The latest federal report I can find is linked below and shared custody here is no where near approaching 97% according to this one. That's quite a turn around in statistics in just a couple years if it's truely at 97% now.

I'd really like to see that report and delve into it.

Child Custody and Access - JustFacts

That is the one I meant, it is currently being bandied about in the Australian papers as a counterpoint to a very shady Royal Commission that is trying to be set up here., I am indeed speaking of access, and if you will hang on, I will bring up the mentions of it. The Guardian will be my source.

This figure was reached out not on those divorcing, but on those contesting access, custody, 2 different sets of parents. That is, on the ones who cannot agree, or have contention.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...ily-court-isn-t-anti-men-20190919-p52syn.html

This article should mention the Canadian report. It has had high impact here, in arguing against a dodgy commission. But this isn't the one I want, but it will suffice for the moment.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Has anyone besides Mr.Dyck's sister spoke about him? I haven't seen any statements, pictures or anything. Not that they have to show but I just found it a bit odd.

There's a "go-funding" (can't post name as it blocks out) link being shared on FB but limited to the privacy of posters sharing it. Donations going to his wife and two kids.

There was this memoriam from UBC I believe already shared here, but sounds like people want their privacy: "As we mourn his loss, we respectfully ask media to allow us the space to grieve in private."

In memoriam of Len Dyck | botany.ubc.ca

 

[NJSleuth91]

His cousin was also interviewed and I think another professor he worked with? And lots of people have shared memories online. It is clear that he had many people who cared about him. But I don't see what the implication is of thinking it's "weird" that his loved ones haven't spoken out more in media interviews. They are under no obligation to speak to the media.

 

[Trooper]

Trooper, can you please link in the report of which you write? I can't find any links to a 2019 report (not even on my fed work computer) with statistics like that.

You may be talking custody with "access" (visitation) to kids rather than actual shared custody. The latest federal report I can find is linked below and shared custody here is no where near approaching 97% according to this one. That's quite a turn around in statistics in just a couple years if it's truely at 97% now.

I'd really like to see that report and delve into it.

Canadian Department of Justice Report: Child Custody and Access - JustFacts

file:///C:/Users/CATHERINE/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/9E0FLLT5/http___www.aphref.aph.gov.au_house_committee_fca_childcustody_subs_sub0751.pdf

I am not sure now if you can enter here. If not, get back to me and I will try and copy/paste.

Canada

Canada is currently in the process of amending its law. The changes contained in a Bill currently before Parliament include the removal of references to ‘custody’ and ‘access’ and an emphasis on protecting the child. However the Canadians have rejected the inclusion of presumptions about shared parenting, and have also decided not to include provisions regarding a child’s right of contact.

 

[Trooper]

Pauline Hanson sparks fury with claim domestic violence victims are lying to family court

'According to researcher Jess Hill, who has authored a book on domestic abuse called See What You Made Me Do, one of the most thorough studies on false abuse allegations from Canada found that non-custodial parents, usually fathers, made false complaints most frequently, accounting for 43% of the total, followed by neighbours and relatives at 19% and mothers at 14%.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...ily-court-isn-t-anti-men-20190919-p52syn.html


Just 3 per cent of fathers who go before the Family Court are refused access to their children, casting doubt on One Nation senator Pauline Hanson's claims that mothers are using the court to deny their ex-partners time with their kids.

According to the Australian Institute of Family Studies, regardless of allegations made in the Family Court, fathers retained visiting or parenting rights in 97 per cent of cases.

 

[Trooper]

Oh, and the "Canadians have rejected etc" should read as "the Canadian politicians have rejected". LOL

edited by me for emphasis..

I hear ya, Vern.. loud and clear, I get it, in spades... same here.

 

[JudgeJudi]

There has been no evidence and only wild speculation to prove they killed anybody to date. The only evidence they were involved in the death of LD is that they were driving his car. No evidence provided regarding why they were suspects in the other murders.

When police decide to criminally charge a person, a peace officer must attend before a justice of the peace or judge and swear an “information” that sets out the particulars of the offence. … and then swear under oath that they have reasonable grounds to believe such an offence took place.

Arrest and Detention in Ontario | Robichaud's Criminal Lawyers

The RCMP charged the teens with LD’s murder, and in order to bring that charge they obviously satisfied a judge that they had reasonable grounds to believe this. Even though he was “brutally” murdered, the fact that the teens were driving his car falls far short of providing reasonable grounds that they were the murderers. Wild speculation would never result in charges being laid.

They said they had substantial evidence linking all 3 murders and they were under no obligation to disclose that evidence to the public as the investigation was ongoing. Once the teens were found deceased, it was too late to lay further charges. However, as this case is being followed internationally, I believe they will provide details about this in their eventual report.

In Canada, 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

Inquests | Ministry of the Solicitor General

 

[srper2]

When police decide to criminally charge a person, a peace officer must attend before a justice of the peace or judge and swear an “information” that sets out the particulars of the offence. … and then swear under oath that they have reasonable grounds to believe such an offence took place.

Arrest and Detention in Ontario | Robichaud's Criminal Lawyers

The RCMP charged the teens with LD’s murder, and in order to bring that charge they obviously satisfied a judge that they had reasonable grounds to believe this. Even though he was “brutally” murdered, the fact that the teens were driving his car falls far short of providing reasonable grounds that they were the murderers. Wild speculation would never result in charges being laid.

They said they had substantial evidence linking all 3 murders and they were under no obligation to disclose that evidence to the public as the investigation was ongoing. Once the teens were found deceased, it was too late to lay further charges. However, as this case is being followed internationally, I believe they will provide details about this in their eventual report.

In Canada, 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

Inquests | Ministry of the Solicitor General

When police decide to criminally charge a person, a peace officer must attend before a justice of the peace or judge and swear an “information” that sets out the particulars of the offence. … and then swear under oath that they have reasonable grounds to believe such an offence took place.

Arrest and Detention in Ontario | Robichaud's Criminal Lawyers

The RCMP charged the teens with LD’s murder, and in order to bring that charge they obviously satisfied a judge that they had reasonable grounds to believe this. Even though he was “brutally” murdered, the fact that the teens were driving his car falls far short of providing reasonable grounds that they were the murderers. Wild speculation would never result in charges being laid.

They said they had substantial evidence linking all 3 murders and they were under no obligation to disclose that evidence to the public as the investigation was ongoing. Once the teens were found deceased, it was too late to lay further charges. However, as this case is being followed internationally, I believe they will provide details about this in their eventual report.

In Canada, 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

Inquests | Ministry of the Solicitor General

That is a lot of dramatic information cut and pasted! Fortunately, people must also be found guilty through the examination of evidence before they are convicted! When it comes down to the facts provided in this case, there have been none, just a lot of waffle. Makes me think of the sayings "If you can't dazzle them with facts, blind them with Bull...." and "the loudest voices aren't always right". I personally need to know there is some reasonable evidence before I believe a person is guilty. While BS and KM were driving LD's car, probably providing some evidence needed to charge them, there has been no evidence at all produced linking them to LF and CD. It also now appears, according to statements reported in the news article we have all bee discussing earlier today, that RCMP may not provide any further report at all regarding this case. We all have our own opinions and I am sticking to mine.

 

[Trooper]

Dagnit. Now it makes sense. Your 97% was Australia … not Canada. Even still, that's only for "access". Wonder what the percentage is of the men that get custody with mom getting only "access". If all things were equal in the system, it would be about 50/50 for either sex.

I misread.

'one of the most thorough studies on false abuse allegations from Canada found that non-custodial parents, usually fathers, made false complaints most frequently, accounting for 43% of the total, followed by neighbours and relatives at 19% and mothers at 14%.'

I found that one an interesting stat, and in the case of AS, not a stat to build up AS's narrative, ..43% fathers, 14% mothers...

 

[katydid23]

That is a lot of dramatic information cut and pasted there, but not relevant to what I was saying! When it comes down to the facts provided in this case, there have been none, just a lot of waffle. Makes me think of the sayings "If you can't dazzle them with facts, blind them with Bull...." and "the loudest voices aren't always right". I personally need to know there is some reasonable evidence before I believe a person is guilty. While BS and KM were driving LD's car, probably providing some evidence needed to charge them, there has been no evidence at all produced linking them to LF and CD. It also now appears, according to statements reported in the news article we have all bee discussing earlier today, that RCMP may not provide any further report at all regarding this case. We all have our own opinions and I am sticking to mine.

LF's father, Stephen, was a chief inspector with the New South Wales (NSW) Police Department.

He flew to the Province of his son's murder, and consulted with the local investigator's throughout their investigation of this tragic crime.

I have not yet heard this father question the validity of the evidence presented to him. Maybe he has doubts? I don't know. But until he voices concerns about the case, I will trust the RCMP.

I do not for one minute, think that this grieving police investigator would accept a shoddy investigation into his son's murder without demanding answers. JMO

 

[Trooper]

LF's father, Stephen, was a chief inspector with the New South Wales (NSW) Police Department.

He flew to the Province of his son's murder, and consulted with the local investigator's throughout their investigation of this tragic crime.

I have not yet heard this father question the validity of the evidence presented to him. Maybe he has doubts? I don't know. But until he voices concerns about the case, I will trust the RCMP.

I do not for one minute, think that this grieving police investigator would accept a shoddy investigation into his son's murder without demanding answers. JMO

I second your statement. When Mr and Mrs Deese start upbraiding the RCMP, count me in. When Prof Dycks family does their block at the RCMP, count me in, too.

As long as the VICTIMS family is right behind all the work done by the RCMP in the matter of the people they loved and lost, count me in with them.

As for the suspects family, while they have all the horror in the world to contend with, I do not take that away from AS , from the McLeods, from Bryers mother and gran, the carping yelps for more haste are simply irrelevant.

 

[srper2]

That is a lot of dramatic information cut and pasted there, but not relevant to what I was saying! It reminds me of the saying "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, blind them with Bull...."! So far I have heard all the talk about the brilliance in solving this case, but haven't been dazzled at all, as when it comes down to the facts, there have been none, just a lot of waffle. We all have our own opinions and I am sticking to mine. I personally need to know there is some reasonable evidence before I believe a person is guilty. While BS and KM were driving LD's car, probably providing some evidence needed to charge them, there has been no evidence at all produced linking them to LF and CD. It also now appears, according to statements reported in the news article we have all bee discussing earlier today, that RCMP may not provide any further report at all regarding this case.

LF's father, Stephen, was a chief inspector with the New South Wales (NSW) Police Department.

He flew to the Province of his son's murder, and consulted with the local investigator's throughout their investigation of this tragic crime.

I have not yet heard this father question the validity of the evidence presented to him. Maybe he has doubts? I don't know. But until he voices concerns about the case, I will trust the RCMP.

I do not for one minute, think that this grieving police investigator would accept a shoddy investigation into his son's murder without demanding answers. JMO

I have not heard any of the victims' families question anything yet. I was replying to Judge Judy, who thought I was ignoring the evidence proving that BS and KM were guilty of killing CD and LF, but I have seen no evidence produced, not one tiny thing that connects them yet.

 

[katydid23]

I have not heard any of the victims' families question anything yet. I was replying to Judge Judy, who thought I was ignoring the evidence proving that BS and KM were guilty of killing CD and LF, but I have seen no evidence produced, not one tiny thing that connects them yet.

I know you haven't seen any evidence yet. Neither have I.

But I bet Lucas's father has. Don't you think he looked into that, quite thoroughly?

Wouldn't you expect that he asked to be fully briefed, about WHY those two boys were being accused of his son's murder? I would think he wanted to know everything about the investigation and he would know the right questions to ask. JMO

If he had any reason to doubt the evidence against those two young men, I think he would want the investigation to continue. JMO

 

[Trooper]

I have not heard any of the victims' families question anything yet. I was replying to Judge Judy, who thought I was ignoring the evidence proving that BS and KM were guilty of killing CD and LF, but I have seen no evidence produced, not one tiny thing that connects them yet.

No accusation of ignoring anything was made. An outline of the procedure required to lay down a charge of murder in any degree was described, concluding that an RCMP officer has personally gone over the evidence, and personally believes there is sufficient evidence to bring a case to fruition in court( providing your suspects don't choose to cark it themselves ) and has personally gone before a magistrate, taken the oath of office and reaffirmation of vows to the truth, and laid down the charges, to which the magistrate has said, 'fine. This is in order and is clearly a declaration of facts and conclusions. '

It would hardly make sense for the RCMP to chase you up and lay it all out and wait for your decision as to whether to lay charges, eh? That's why we hire police to do that. He /she is doing that IN OUR NAME. On our dime, so to speak. Well. not exactly mine, but probably yours..

 

[Trooper]

It's fine not to believe that K and B could do such a thing. Nothing wrong with that. That is a personal view, and one can be entitled to hold it..

But the RCMP has enough evidence to go before a magistrate , duly sworn and table concrete evidence of the crime of Kam and Bryer to receive from that duly sworn officer of the court a licence to charge K and B with second degree murder.

So there is evidence. Otherwise , that charge could not be legally laid against them. The only glitch here is you haven't seen that evidence. There are no grounds for claiming that there isn't any evidence when evidence was required to have them charged in the matter of Prof Dycks death and a heavy enough brick of evidence to process a Canada wide search with all that entails.