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

[JudgeJudi]

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.

Absolutely, and that's what I said in #735.

 

[srper2]

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

I haven't heard anything about what Lucas's father thinks is happening or if he has received any information on the case? I cannot understand why you keep asking me about my opinions on Lucas's father? Perhaps better to post your opinions separately and not attached to my posts which have no connection?

 

[srper2]

Thought I'd post this for everyone who is getting hot under the collar here!

 

[srper2]

a

 

[Satchie]

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

Also, police work closely with the Prosecution service. They're the ones who have to successfully bring a case through the trial process, so I believe it is they who decide what charges should be laid and when. If you follow trials these days, you notice that the prosecution rarely lose a case. Even if a person is strongly believed to be guilty, prosecution won't waste the enormous resources a trial costs, until they are confident they can prove the guilt. They'll demand police get more evidence, which sometimes require sting operations, wiretapping, or just waiting and hoping more evidence turns up.

These days, if someone is found not guilty of the crime in court, it doesn't mean they are innocent, it only means the evidence was not sufficient to prove guilt, and many people will consider that the guilty person 'got off'.

For example, Dennis Oland was found guilty of murdering his father in Nova Scotia, but appealed on technicalities and the appeal judge overturned the verdict because the case wasn't strong enough. Does that somehow "prove" he didn't kill his father? IMO, not at all.

 

[ktm44]

My family will never see justice for our murder because a city police department did not follow proper protocol and released a erroneous cause of death before autopsy results were concluded, failed to secure the crime scene based on their erroenous beliefs and when they did make an arrest, there was no evidence tying that person to the murders so we can conclude that either an innocent or guilty man walked free. I'd rather that any family has to wait a bit of extra time to ensure they learn the whole truth rather than probable truth. There's no going back or redos once the information is released to the victims families.

I can't speak for all provinces and I certainly can't speak for all evidence but I do know, from firsthand experience that in Alberta, the results from a coroner ordered toxicology test takes approximately 3 months.

DNA results also take a fairly long time and may be something RCMP is waiting on. On their own, toxicology and DNA results may seem insignificant but I can't see the RCMP providing much in the way of answers until they have received, reviewed, analyzed and documented every lab result and every shred of information and compiled a complete and comprehensive report.

 

[NJSleuth91]

There was definitely evidence for Professor Dyck's murder, as indicated by the fact that they were charged (although, charged != convicted). But they were never charged with Lucas and Chynna's murders and nobody has been told what evidence points to it. The RCMP did say that they expected the gun ballistics to definitively indicate Kam and Bryer killed Lucas and Chynna, but there was no word on whether that was the case.

I do think they probably killed all three victims. But I can understand why people are frustrated by the lack of information, especially people who knew the suspects. If I was a family member of one of the suspects, I wouldn't just accept at face value that they killed people with no evidence presented.

That doesn't mean the RCMP should rush the full report either. But from what we've heard (what I mentioned in a previous post) it sounds like the family members of the suspects haven't been getting any more information than the general public.

 

[Satchie]

There was definitely evidence for Professor Dyck's murder, as indicated by the fact that they were charged (although, charged != convicted). But they were never charged with Lucas and Chynna's murders and nobody has been told what evidence points to it. The RCMP did say that they expected the gun ballistics to definitively indicate Kam and Bryer killed Lucas and Chynna, but there was no word on whether that was the case.

I do think they probably killed all three victims. But I can understand why people are frustrated by the lack of information, especially people who knew the suspects. If I was a family member of one of the suspects, I wouldn't just accept at face value that they killed people with no evidence presented.

That doesn't mean the RCMP should rush the full report either. But from what we've heard (what I mentioned in a previous post) it sounds like the family members of the suspects haven't been getting any more information than the general public.

When it comes to a loved one who is accused of a terrible crime, I don't think a family member's reaction is rational. I also don't believe they can wait, keep an open mind, and draw their conclusions based on a detailed examination of police evidence months later.

I think some people stay loyal to their loved one no matter what (for example, mothers who will never accept their son's guilt, whatever the trial verdict), while others, perhaps because they were emotionally very close, may feel they know the truth in their heart.

The family members know when the teens cut off contact with them, that they burned their truck, stole a car, leaving its owner dead by the side of the highway, fled as far away as they could get from everyone who loved them, hid from police in a godforsaken place during a marathon manhunt, and killed themselves rather than face charges. And they know whatever they saw on the final videos.

IMO that is the kind of truth they have to wrestle with, rather than the bits of forensic evidence police are able to cobble together, long after whatever horrible events happened. Some family members might always believe they were innocent and others may already be convinced they are guilty.

 

[NJSleuth91]

When it comes to a loved one who is accused of a terrible crime, I don't think a family member's reaction is rational. I also don't believe they can wait, keep an open mind, and draw their conclusions based on a detailed examination of police evidence months later.

I think some people stay loyal to their loved one no matter what (for example, mothers who will never accept their son's guilt, whatever the trial verdict), while others, who were emotionally very close, may feel they know the truth in their heart.

The family members know when the teens cut off contact with them, that they burned their truck, fled as far away as they could get from everyone who loved them, hid from police in a godforsaken place during a marathon manhunt, and killed themselves rather than face charges. And they know whatever they saw on the final videos.

IMO that is the kind of truth they have to wrestle with, rather than the bits of forensic evidence police are able to cobble together, long after whatever horrible events happened. Some family members might always believe they were innocent and others may already be convinced they are guilty.

Well, it's pretty obvious from what we know that they committed one murder. It's the other two that we have no information on what links them.

Also their families only saw 30 seconds of a video and that clip of the video was a goodbye and "last will and testament" apparently. Not much time to explain what happened in 30 seconds. I do think Kam and Bryer confessed on the other videos, but none of those have been released to family members.

From the interviews of Bryer's great-uncle, and the latest one of his dad, it seems like they do accept that Kam and Bryer most likely did it. They are still confused about why and how this all happened, as that is not the person they knew. And they still want to see more evidence and are frustrated that nothing has been officially released in a month and a half. Even if the entire report is not released, the RCMP could still update the families periodically, and the evidence I mentioned in an earlier post indicates they haven't been doing that at all.

I don't think there's anything wrong with people not being definitively convinced they killed Lucas and Chynna when zero evidence has been presented. Even I still think there's a tiny chance they didn't do it. I think they most likely did, but even I'm not going to say 100% that they did it when literally zero evidence has been presented. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

 

[Moriarty]

When it comes to a loved one who is accused of a terrible crime, I don't think a family member's reaction is rational. I also don't believe they can wait, keep an open mind, and draw their conclusions based on a detailed examination of police evidence months later.

I think some people stay loyal to their loved one no matter what (for example, mothers who will never accept their son's guilt, whatever the trial verdict), while others, perhaps because they were emotionally very close, may feel they know the truth in their heart.

The family members know when the teens cut off contact with them, that they burned their truck, stole a car, leaving its owner dead by the side of the highway, fled as far away as they could get from everyone who loved them, hid from police in a godforsaken place during a marathon manhunt, and killed themselves rather than face charges. And they know whatever they saw on the final videos.

IMO that is the kind of truth they have to wrestle with, rather than the bits of forensic evidence police are able to cobble together, long after whatever horrible events happened. Some family members might always believe they were innocent and others may already be convinced they are guilty.

There was definitely evidence for Professor Dyck's murder, as indicated by the fact that they were charged (although, charged != convicted). But they were never charged with Lucas and Chynna's murders and nobody has been told what evidence points to it. The RCMP did say that they expected the gun ballistics to definitively indicate Kam and Bryer killed Lucas and Chynna, but there was no word on whether that was the case.

I do think they probably killed all three victims. But I can understand why people are frustrated by the lack of information, especially people who knew the suspects. If I was a family member of one of the suspects, I wouldn't just accept at face value that they killed people with no evidence presented.

Maybe the families of the suspects were told more, at the outset at least, than we realize. I think of all our speculation here as a little akin to searching for exo-planets. We can’t see those planets in other systems, but we can see how information, in the form of light, is warped and bent by those bodies and determine their movements. In sort of a reverse scenario, here we can see the movements/actions of the parents and try to determine the nature of the information.

On July 19, the two teens were missing, their camper was on fire and the unidentified body of Prof. Dyck was found. At that point, the teens were labelled as missing. One of the parents goes on TV, desperate, calling attention to their survival abilities and airsoft games, demanding that authorities find these boys. I would do the exact same thing if my child was missing, making as much noise as possible to keep his/her name out there on everyone’s mind, reminding the public he/she is an actual person with passions and interests. That’s even disregarding that there are bodies and a possible murderer on the loose.

UNLESS…RCMP spoke to me and laid out a few details not available to the public that seems to point towards my child as the culprit, not the victim. In that case, I might stay quiet publicly, privately sending messages to my kid begging them to come out of the woods and turn themselves in, hoping for a speedy, non-confrontational resolution to all of this. I certainly would not want to speak up about anything extraneous in fear of digging my own child’s grave by painting them negatively for any police confrontation or future trial.

The parent who self-reportedly has the least amount of information and contact with LE has been the most vocal. The parents with possibly the most information and contact with LE say nothing, not even in the face of what seems like a lackluster search attempt. There is no reporting of SAR teams scouring the forests for the boys, no photos of dogs being brought in to the Dease Lake area, no reports by locals of volunteers searching along the river or roadways...

It seems like only AS thought they were actually missing in that period between July 19 and July 23.

 

[CinNC]

I don't THINK that posting this link is against TOS. I just read through the long version of TOS and didn't see anything that would say so. That said, can someone PLEASE let me know if it is against TOS, so I can delete it?

This article struck me as providing info on a potential source of guns in the general area that KM and AS lived in.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-middle-class-gang-problem-surrey-1.5259790

 

[Satchie]

Well, it's pretty obvious from what we know that they committed one murder. It's the other two that we have no information on what links them.

Also their families only saw 30 seconds of a video and that clip of the video was a goodbye and "last will and testament" apparently. Not much time to explain what happened in 30 seconds. I do think Kam and Bryer confessed on the other videos, but none of those have been released to family members.

From the interviews of Bryer's great-uncle, and the latest one of his dad, it seems like they do accept that Kam and Bryer most likely did it. They are still confused about why and how this all happened, as that is not the person they knew. And they still want to see more evidence and are frustrated that nothing has been officially released in a month and a half. Even if the entire report is not released, the RCMP could still update the families periodically, and the evidence I mentioned in an earlier post indicates they haven't been doing that at all.

I don't think there's anything wrong with people not being definitively convinced they killed Lucas and Chynna when zero evidence has been presented. Even I still think there's a tiny chance they didn't do it. I think they most likely did, but even I'm not going to say 100% that they did it when literally zero evidence has been presented. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

I was trying to distinguish between how a member of the public might view the importance of police evidence, vs how a family member might view it.

My experience is that people who have or had a direct relationship with the victims or the suspects will have a very different attitude towards 'evidence', than members of the public. They will be experiencing powerful emotions and will also have a deep knowledge of the personal reality of the victims and suspects, that, IMO, are being overlooked in most of the postings.

 

[NJSleuth91]

Maybe the families of the suspects were told more, at the outset at least, than we realize. I think of all our speculation here as a little akin to searching for exo-planets. We can’t see those planets in other systems, but we can see how information, in the form of light, is warped and bent by those bodies and determine their movements. In sort of a reverse scenario, here we can see the movements/actions of the parents and try to determine the nature of the information.

On July 19, the two teens were missing, their camper was on fire and the unidentified body of Prof. Dyck was found. At that point, the teens were labelled as missing. One of the parents goes on TV, desperate, calling attention to their survival abilities and airsoft games, demanding that authorities find these boys. I would do the exact same thing if my child was missing, making as much noise as possible to keep his/her name out there on everyone’s mind, reminding the public he/she is an actual person with passions and interests. That’s even disregarding that there are bodies and a possible murderer on the loose.

UNLESS…RCMP spoke to me and laid out a few details not available to the public that seems to point towards my child as the culprit, not the victim. In that case, I might stay quiet publicly, privately sending messages to my kid begging them to come out of the woods and turn themselves in, hoping for a speedy, non-confrontational resolution to all of this. I certainly would not want to speak up about anything extraneous in fear of digging my own child’s grave by painting them negatively for any police confrontation or future trial.

The parent who self-reportedly has the least amount of information and contact with LE has been the most vocal. The parents with possibly the most information and contact with LE say nothing, not even in the face of what seems like a lackluster search attempt. There is no reporting of SAR teams scouring the forests for the boys, no photos of dogs being brought in to the Dease Lake area, no reports by locals of volunteers searching along the river or roadways...

It seems like only AS thought they were actually missing in that period between July 19 and July 23.

If that was the case then why would Bryer's great-uncle specifically say on August 9th that his family wasn't told any more information than the general public?

Also, if they had enough evidence at that time to indicate Kam and Bryer did it, why wasn't the "extremely dangerous -- do not approach" thing released until days later, when they were already in the woods? They easily could have killed a bunch of people while they were traveling across the country, and how would anyone have known to watch out? There WERE several people who interacted with them in isolated circumstances. Fortunately, it turns out Kam and Bryer were done with killing, but police had no way of knowing that at the time. The police are very lucky that nothing else happened.

 

[Zella]

Maybe the families of the suspects were told more, at the outset at least, than we realize. I think of all our speculation here as a little akin to searching for exo-planets. We can’t see those planets in other systems, but we can see how information, in the form of light, is warped and bent by those bodies and determine their movements. In sort of a reverse scenario, here we can see the movements/actions of the parents and try to determine the nature of the information.

On July 19, the two teens were missing, their camper was on fire and the unidentified body of Prof. Dyck was found. At that point, the teens were labelled as missing. One of the parents goes on TV, desperate, calling attention to their survival abilities and airsoft games, demanding that authorities find these boys. I would do the exact same thing if my child was missing, making as much noise as possible to keep his/her name out there on everyone’s mind, reminding the public he/she is an actual person with passions and interests. That’s even disregarding that there are bodies and a possible murderer on the loose.

UNLESS…RCMP spoke to me and laid out a few details not available to the public that seems to point towards my child as the culprit, not the victim. In that case, I might stay quiet publicly, privately sending messages to my kid begging them to come out of the woods and turn themselves in, hoping for a speedy, non-confrontational resolution to all of this. I certainly would not want to speak up about anything extraneous in fear of digging my own child’s grave by painting them negatively for any police confrontation or future trial.

The parent who self-reportedly has the least amount of information and contact with LE has been the most vocal. The parents with possibly the most information and contact with LE say nothing, not even in the face of what seems like a lackluster search attempt. There is no reporting of SAR teams scouring the forests for the boys, no photos of dogs being brought in to the Dease Lake area, no reports by locals of volunteers searching along the river or roadways...

It seems like only AS thought they were actually missing in that period between July 19 and July 23.

This makes a lot of sense. Within that context, the letters to the media written by Kam's dad and Bryer's mom, as well as Bryer's grandmother's brief statements to the press, do kind of sound like public statements that are also directed at the police if they had privately indicated to the families the two teens were suspects.

MOO

 

[Satchie]

I don't THINK that posting this link is against TOS. I just read through the long version of TOS and didn't see anything that would say so. That said, can someone PLEASE let me know if it is against TOS, so I can delete it?

This article struck me as providing info on a potential source of guns in the general area that KM and AS lived in.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-middle-class-gang-problem-surrey-1.5259790

It's mainstream media, so certainly not against TOS.

However, it reminds that it's possible the suspects' families know exactly where the gun(s) came from, and were the ones who gave that information to police.

 

[CinNC]

It's mainstream media, so certainly not against TOS.

However, it reminds that it's possible the suspects' families know exactly where the gun(s) came from, and were the ones who gave that information to police.

In this context, it is possible that AS' latest video wherein he says (paraphrasing) to get to a solution, find out where the guns came from - is rhetorical. If he knew or suspected BS's involvement in such a thing he would realize that the answers would come from the provider of guns.

 

[Moriarty]

If that was the case then why would Bryer's great-uncle specifically say on August 9th that his family wasn't told any more information than the general public?

Also, if they had enough evidence at that time to indicate Kam and Bryer did it, why wasn't the "extremely dangerous -- do not approach" thing released until days later, when they were already in the woods? They easily could have killed a bunch of people while they were traveling across the country, and how would anyone have known to watch out? There WERE several people who interacted with them in isolated circumstances. Fortunately, it turns out Kam and Bryer were done with killing, but police had no way of knowing that at the time. The police are very lucky that nothing else happened.

I don't know, @NJSleuth91. The interview I saw with the great-uncle states that he spoke with the Staff Sargent in charge of the investigation, but it didn't say anything about not getting anymore info than the general public.

As for the second part, that is what I'm personally interested in finding out because going just from what it looks like to me, it may be that the RCMP were playing a very dangerous game of trying to coax the two into the open. And yes, more people could have died.

I really hope my hunch is wrong, that the RCMP just thought the two were missing and that some killer/killers left one body on the side of the road but took two teens hostage or took their bodies with them or they ran off into the woods and would come out eventually on their own. I would love to hear that there was indeed a search done for them in those days between July 19 and 23.

 

[Moriarty]

If that was the case then why would Bryer's great-uncle specifically say on August 9th that his family wasn't told any more information than the general public?

Also, if they had enough evidence at that time to indicate Kam and Bryer did it, why wasn't the "extremely dangerous -- do not approach" thing released until days later, when they were already in the woods? They easily could have killed a bunch of people while they were traveling across the country, and how would anyone have known to watch out? There WERE several people who interacted with them in isolated circumstances. Fortunately, it turns out Kam and Bryer were done with killing, but police had no way of knowing that at the time. The police are very lucky that nothing else happened.

Just watched the longer interview that was playing while the CBC aired live footage of the loading of the caskets. Yes, he does indeed say that they do not have any more information beyond what has been released with regards to anything internal to state what happened or how it happened. Sorry, @NJSleuth91, you're right!

Of course, I'm assuming he's speaking about the larger crimes and not the specific suicides of Kam and Bryer.

 

[MistyWaters]

I don't THINK that posting this link is against TOS. I just read through the long version of TOS and didn't see anything that would say so. That said, can someone PLEASE let me know if it is against TOS, so I can delete it?

This article struck me as providing info on a potential source of guns in the general area that KM and AS lived in.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-middle-class-gang-problem-surrey-1.5259790

Surrey has its share of gang issues, for sure. But K&B lived on Vancouver Island. Surrey is close to the City of Vancouver, which isn’t on Vancouver Island although it does bear the same name. However Victoria, where AS lived, is on Vancouver Island and is the capital of BC. I can understand how it’s confusing, where what is.

And that’s not to say gangs don’t operate anywhere else other than Surrey, BC because that would definitely not be true.

 

[NJSleuth91]

I don't know, @NJSleuth91. The interview I saw with the great-uncle states that he spoke with the Staff Sargent in charge of the investigation, but it didn't say anything about not getting anymore info than the general public.

It was in the video that I posted a few pages back (post #719). Around the 1:50 mark: "We don't have anything that hasn't been released into the media already, in terms of what happened, how it happened, anything else." That is about as definitive of a statement on that subject as one could imagine.

As for the second part, that is what I'm personally interested in finding out because going just from what it looks like to me, it may be that the RCMP were playing a very dangerous game of trying to coax the two into the open. And yes, more people could have died.

I really hope my hunch is wrong, that the RCMP just thought the two were missing and that some killer/killers left one body on the side of the road but took two teens hostage or took their bodies with them or they ran off into the woods and would come out eventually on their own. I would love to hear that there was indeed a search done for them in those days between July 19 and 23.

I also have a lot of questions about that and that could be one reason why the lawyer is so convinced there will be an inquest. (I can also think of several other reasons.) They were just allowed to run off across the country and it doesn't seem like they were being looked for that hard. I don't think they wanted to kill anyone else at that point but the RCMP had no way of knowing that, and the general public was at risk. If they were named as persons of interest or something earlier, would the surveillance footage have come out earlier and the police would have been able to track them down? Would the alcohol checkpoint officers have recognized them? Is it possible they could even have been captured alive?