Canada - Lucas Fowler, Chynna Deese, and Leonard Dyck, all murdered, Alaska Hwy, BC, Jul 2019 #22

[NJSleuth91]

I wondered if their plan to kill 100 more was less posturing and more a reference to a belief they would have a showdown with police, which might have worked but the RCMP were careful not to put themselves in that position and they hadn't shed most of their ammo.

But wouldn't they have attracted the RCMP to their location in that case? Even if the RCMP had tactical ways to prevent a shootout, I can't imagine these guys would have thought that far ahead.

Also they didn't say 100 more people, they just said "more people," at least according to the report.

Many reports indicate that they had some bush experience maybe their idea of camping is a weekend at a public campground with a few hundred close neighbors, steaks and bugers to grill and beer in a cooler. I grew a bit differently and the bush provides plenty of groceries. A simple snare would provide squirrel and if the weren't able to provide able to hunt/fish or forage, they were dead when the walked into the bush.

TBH I can't see them being even at Chris McCandless levels of survivalism (and you know how it ended up for him!) I doubt they acquired much in the way of provisions along the way. I mean there are wild berries that time of year...maybe that was at their skill level LOL. But who knows.

Also they couldn't even cook anything because the fire would attract police.

 

[MistyWaters]

Exactly. While they have similarities to some other spree killing cases, they are still very different. I'm still waiting for that one person to say one or both of them were violent. I hardly count something someone said happened when Bryer was in middle school to hold much weight.

I think it’s highly unlikely anybody’s going to open up to the media in a I-knew-it! sort of way. What would be the point except to cause further devastation to an already tragic scenario?

People who knew either the two personally are not responsible for proving to the general public the RCMP got it right. They’re now left with their own personal issues involving shock, sadness and grief and if you’ve ever been personally touched by real life tragedy, it’s nothing at all the same as sensationalism created by the media in order to capture the general public’s attention.

 

[LoisLane]

Autopsy reports are not public records in Canada and if you’re able to google anything to the contrary, I’d be interested.

“Cornered and surrounded, no way out.” .......I hope I’m misunderstanding, by that are you suggesting the RCMP were responsible for the deaths of B & K because that’s not what was said at all. A question was asked during the PC about where the bodies were found and the response was the two were located between the river and the steep cliffs and were unable to climb back out. The police certainly did not force them to go there unless safely evading arrest after murdering innocent people has become a new legal right. How would an inquest determine why they were in that location when both parties are now dead?

You are misunderstanding. I never suggested the RCMP are responsible for their deaths. Not at all. I do consider it a fair examination to determine if they could have done their work differently in order to bring the suspects out alive and safely. For example, if the dogs and aircraft, military and heavy police presence demonstrated to the accused that they had no way out and the officers had suspicions they would end their lives, what measures did they take in case of an opportunity to negotiate a crisis suicide or hostage situation.

Those were not the exact words. (But close enough IMO)... but it’s the impression I was left with.
It starts at 27:20 in the Q&A:

If someone could transcribe this part that would be so helpful.

“How would an inquest determine why they were in that location when both parties are now dead?” I’m not sure I understand what you mean by this. Inquests are usually about an already dead person so they have to work with it I guess.

Why they are in that location? Does the inquest have to be specific to that or could it be for something else?

I hope my comments can be considered without assuming that I’m against the RCMP.

ETA. I am confusing the autopsy and coroners report as being the same thing. Sorry about that. Coroner report is what I linked in my previous comment.

 

[MistyWaters]

The report gave details of the search. About 2/3rds of the timeline of the report occurred after the murders. It also gave information on the movements of the suspects after the murders. That included the contents of the videos (even details that went beyond their confessions) and details of their deaths, suicide pact, final wishes for their remains, etc. It also mentioned that unsuccessful attempts were made to find out when the videos were recorded from metadata on the camera. Clearly, the report contained more than just what was needed to prove that they committed the murders and how they did it, and did also include information on the suspects beyond that. The estimated range of death is relevant information in the context of what has already been released.

Yes, the report offered specific factual details of the search in the context of why the RCMP were attempting to apprehend the suspects, considering the evidence indicated they were responsible for the murders of L&C and LD. That’s to be expected.

But if people believe there’s going to be further official information forthcoming focusing solely on the suspects - their life, their attempt to evade arrest or further details of their death - I think they’ll be disappointed. It’s by ongoing focus, how criminals achieve notoriety and their victims get forgotten.

 

[MistyWaters]

You are misunderstanding. I never suggested the RCMP are responsible for their deaths. Not at all. I do consider it a fair examination to determine if they could have done their work differently in order to bring the suspects out alive and safely. For example, if the dogs and aircraft, military and heavy police presence demonstrated to the accused that they had no way out and the officers had suspicions they would end their lives, what measures did they take in case of an opportunity to negotiate a crisis suicide or hostage situation.

Those were not the exact words. (But close enough IMO)... but it’s the impression I was left with.
It starts at 27:20 in the Q&A:

If someone could transcribe this part that would be so helpful.

“How would an inquest determine why they were in that location when both parties are now dead?” I’m not sure I understand what you mean by this. Inquests are usually about an already dead person so they have to work with it I guess.

Why they are in that location? Does the inquest have to be specific to that or could it be for something else?

I hope you can consider my comments without assuming that I’m against the RCMP.

ETA. I am confusing the autopsy and coroners report as being the same thing. Sorry about that. Coroner report is what I linked in my previous comment.

Oh good, thank you for clarifying because I didn’t really think you meant what I was reading into your comments.

Inquests are held when it’s possible that policies can be created to prevent similar future deaths from occurring. As B&K chose to die by suicide and no other influence was found, no motive is known, I really doubt an inquest will be held because they took the answers to the grave. As it’s unknown what went broken about them, who can say what needs to be fixed? All that’s left is speculation and five deaths, unfortunately.

“The provincial and federal governments have the power to convene public inquiries to investigate and examine matters that implicate public policy or public concern. Throughout Canada, various commissions have been established to conduct such inquiries and make reports and/or recommendations to address the concerns raised in the inquiry and inform public policy making.”
Inquiries and Inquests

 

[NJSleuth91]

Yes, the report offered specific factual details of the search in the context of why the RCMP were attempting to apprehend the suspects, considering the evidence indicated they were responsible for the murders of L&C and LD. That’s to be expected.

But if people believe there’s going to be further official information forthcoming focusing solely on the suspects - their life, their attempt to evade arrest or further details of their death - I think they’ll be disappointed. It’s by ongoing focus, how criminals achieve notoriety and their victims get forgotten.

Well, some people thought the police, in order to prevent "attention from being on the suspects," would not release any information at all on:
*the contents of the videos or even confirmation of their existence
*the motive (although the police couldn't find a concrete one, they did try to figure it out and gave as much information as they had)
*the items that were found that led to their bodies
*even their cause of death back when they were first found
etc.

Turns out the people who thought the police wouldn't release all those pieces of information, were wrong on all those.

Also the only way their date of death would increase their notoriety is if it turns out these two idiot teenagers really did evade the RCMP for well over a week, which goes back to what I was saying.

 

[MistyWaters]

Well, some people thought the police, in order to prevent "attention from being on the suspects," would not release any information at all on:
*the contents of the videos or even confirmation of their existence
*the motive (although the police couldn't find a concrete one, they did try to figure it out and gave as much information as they had)
*the items that were found that led to their bodies
*even their cause of death back when they were first found
etc.

Turns out the people who thought the police wouldn't release all those pieces of information, were wrong on all those.

I was one who didn’t think they’d release the content of the videos but given the summarized context, I can certainly understand why it was helpful to the conclusion of the investigation. It established the fact the two admitted to the murders, neither showed any remorse and both planned their suicide which put an end to all sorts of earlier public speculation. That they’d initially intended to hijack a boat from Hudson Bay to Africa or Europe went a long way to illustrate their totally bizarre mindset as well, but also answering the question about why they fled to a dead end road in Northern Manitoba. I think some people hoped the content might’ve been somewhat more dramatic but that’s as far as it went.

 

[NJSleuth91]

I was one who didn’t think they’d release the content of the videos but given the summarized context, I can certainly understand why it was helpful to the conclusion of the investigation. It established the fact the two admitted to the murders, neither showed any remorse and both planned their suicide. That had initially intended to hijack a boat in Hudson Bay to Africa or Europe went a long ways to illustrate their mindset as well.

It was argued by some people before the report came out, that there was no need to understand their mindset, determine whether they expressed remorse, determine whether their crimes were planned or unplanned, or even publicly release how they died, because that just served to give them notoriety and took the focus off the victims. It was argued before the report came out, that all that would be released in the report was sufficient forensic evidence from ballistics and such that to prove that they committed the murders (and it turns out the police had way more than enough there even without the confession).

I think some people hoped the content might’ve been somewhat more dramatic but that’s as far as it went.

Not sure it's possible for the content to be more dramatic than what it was....

 

[MistyWaters]

It was argued by some people before the report came out, that there was no need to understand their mindset, determine whether they expressed remorse, determine whether their crimes were planned or unplanned, or even publicly release how they died, because that just served to give them notoriety and took the focus off the victims. It was argued before the report came out, that all that would be released in the report was sufficient forensic evidence from ballistics and such that to prove that they committed the murders (and it turns out the police had way more than enough there even without the confession).



Not sure it's possible for the content to be more dramatic than what it was....

I’m not sure where you’re going with this because I don’t know who your argument is with.

But it was the RCMP who stated shortly after the bodies were found that the motive may never be known. And unfortunately it remains unknown, as was their mindset at the time of the murders. If I recall correctly, early on some of the family members of the victims prepared themselves in never knowing all the answers as well.

 

[NJSleuth91]

I’m not sure where you’re going with this because I don’t know who your argument is with.

But it was the RCMP who stated shortly after the bodies were found that the motive may never be known. And unfortunately it remains unknown, as was their mindset at the time of the murders. If I recall correctly, early on some of the family members of the victims prepared themselves in never knowing all the answers as well.

What I'm saying is, historically the people who have said information about the suspects won't be released to prevent publicity and notoriety, have been wrong pretty much every time. (With the exception of the videos themselves not being released, but...we all knew they were never going to release those, at least not immediately.)

 

[MistyWaters]

Not sure it's possible for the content to be more dramatic than what it was....

By more dramatic I’m referring to no details of the murders were provided, no reasons or rational (although there can be no reasonable explanation). The few seconds of each of the videos offered no real answers at all and appeared to be primarily self-serving in content.

 

[MistyWaters]

What I'm saying is, historically the people who have said information about the suspects won't be released to prevent publicity and notoriety, have been wrong pretty much every time. (With the exception of the videos themselves not being released, but...we all knew they were never going to release those, at least not immediately.)

Far less detailed information about suspects everywhere is released in present day, compared to years ago. I notice this intent is very obvious even regarding many of the recent mass shootings in the US. The risk of copycat crime is not only of concern in this particular case.

The Push to Not Name Mass Shooters Is Catching On

 

[sandbar]

dbm

 

[Trooper]

Far less detailed information about suspects everywhere is released in present day, compared to years ago. I notice this intent is very obvious even regarding many of the recent mass shootings in the US. The risk of copycat crime is not only of concern in this particular case.

The Push to Not Name Mass Shooters Is Catching On

A single decision by New Zealand's leader may prevent copycat killers

 

[NJSleuth91]

Far less detailed information about suspects everywhere is released in present day, compared to years ago. I notice this intent is very obvious even regarding many of the recent mass shootings in the US. The risk of copycat crime is not only of concern in this particular case.

The Push to Not Name Mass Shooters Is Catching On

I don't believe in censorship and lack of transparency, but ok. However due to the huge manhunt, it wasn't really possible to do that in this case.

 

[Errrr]

I was one who didn’t think they’d release the content of the videos but given the summarized context, I can certainly understand why it was helpful to the conclusion of the investigation. It established the fact the two admitted to the murders, neither showed any remorse and both planned their suicide which put an end to all sorts of earlier public speculation. That they’d initially intended to hijack a boat from Hudson Bay to Africa or Europe went a long way to illustrate their totally bizarre mindset as well, but also answering the question about why they fled to a dead end road in Northern Manitoba. I think some people hoped the content might’ve been somewhat more dramatic but that’s as far as it went.

This kind of reminds me of a nasty little cousin who use to have my brother so star struck from his stories, my brother thought he was god. My brother thought he could cause anything to happen and was angry when we told him it was all lies. They were well under ten years old at the time. This idea of high jacking a boat to Europe has that vibe. One privileged guy posturing to an adoring fan who’s prepared to believe every story he tells. His sister also use to tell me tales I loved to hear. Kept asking for more and she delivered. Finally she got tired of the game and declared she made it all up so I would stop bugging her. I was so disappointed it was not real, when rationally I should have known this.

 

[Inkblot]

Plus he had a criminal record for multiple thefts by the time he was 18. It's sort of a different psychological profile than two people with zero criminal record or pattern of escalating violent behavior suddenly deciding to become brutally violent.

Yes, I totally understand. I was merely conveying that even "nice guys" can have a dark side (at any age). Maybe Kam and Bryer also committed multiple thefts, perhaps they even tortured small animals and were never caught. Everybody starts with zero criminal record, until they get caught doing something criminal. Being nice just helps them to blend in to the community and to gain trust - it's all a facade. Terry Driver, (the Abbotsford Killer), for example - all his workmates and people who knew him well swore he didn't do it. It was his own mother who turned him in after recognizing his voice when he was making taunting calls to the police. These boys were anything but nice.

 

[ktm44]

But wouldn't they have attracted the RCMP to their location in that case? Even if the RCMP had tactical ways to prevent a shootout, I can't imagine these guys would have thought that far ahead.

Also they didn't say 100 more people, they just said "more people," at least according to the report.



TBH I can't see them being even at Chris McCandless levels of survivalism (and you know how it ended up for him!) I doubt they acquired much in the way of provisions along the way. I mean there are wild berries that time of year...maybe that was at their skill level LOL. But who knows.

Also they couldn't even cook anything because the fire would attract police.

I'm sorry, the sentence you quoted was written so poorly that it's impossible to interpret. I do believe they were posturing and at the time it was recorded, I suspect it reflected AS belief that his son would go out in a blaze of glory. I don't believe for one minute that they had the firepower, intellect or tactical ability to kill 100 officers or 100 civilians. Many articles indicated that

I'm not sure what level of bush experience they had. AS did idicate they'd spent time in the bush and it's been said that Kam had some hunting experience but I do stand by my statement that if they entered the bush with no capability to hunt, forage or fish, any food they would have had would deplete and they would quickly starve to death.

 

[musicaljoke]

However it doesn't make much sense to me that they didn't engage in a shootout vs. suicide. Even at the point where they decided on suicide, you would think they would be like "well, we're going to die anyway, might as well go out in a 'blaze of glory.'" That seems like it would be the ultimate way to go out for notoriety, rather than just killing themselves. It also fits with their "militia" image of themselves.

My best guess is that they really wanted to be the ones to kill themselves (which is why they went through all those ritualistic preparations for death and made all those videos about it) and that's why they didn't engage in a shootout with the police either.

Literally nobody disputed that the RCMP should have named them armed and extremely dangerous, but ok.

Lethal use of force in Canada is still pretty rare. Between 1990 and 2014 there were 376 fatal police shootings in Canada. In the U.S. there were at least 987 in 2015 alone! That number could be higher because there are 18,000 independent police agencies, and there's no federal tracking of police shootings in the US.*

Given that the suspects could not survive long in the wilderness, it's highly unlikely that the police would have engaged in any sort of shootout. RCMP had the advantage of time and patience. Shooting the suspects would have been unnecessary and difficult to defend when the inevitable independent inquiry looked into this case.

You might remember that the RCMP sent a negotiation team once it was obvious that the suspects were in the general location. The RCMP made provision so that the suspects would be able to turn themselves in.

Would the pair realize that the RCMP wouldn't engage them in a shoot out? Perhaps. The suspects could have exposed their final location by shooting at passers-by on the river. But they didn't. Likely you are right that they wanted to dispatch themselves. Who knows? Their thinking defies all explanation.

*Policing in Canada vs Policing in the USA

 

[NJSleuth91]

Yes, I totally understand. I was merely conveying that even "nice guys" can have a dark side (at any age).

Yes, I agree with that, but that doesn't mean that it always is destined to escalate into violence. I think many people are thinking this could have been prevented if warning signs were recognized.

Maybe Kam and Bryer also committed multiple thefts, perhaps they even tortured small animals and were never caught.

I kind of doubt it, considering how sloppy they were with their crimes...I can't see them getting away with anything.

I'm sorry, the sentence you quoted was written so poorly that it's impossible to interpret. I do believe they were posturing and at the time it was recorded, I suspect it reflected AS belief that his son would go out in a blaze of glory.

Agreed on both counts.

I don't believe for one minute that they had the firepower, intellect or tactical ability to kill 100 officers or 100 civilians.

I've never read anything about them claiming that they would kill "100" people, though. Where did you read this?

I'm not sure what level of bush experience they had. AS did idicate they'd spent time in the bush and it's been said that Kam had some hunting experience but I do stand by my statement that if they entered the bush with no capability to hunt, forage or fish, any food they would have had would deplete and they would quickly starve to death.

I'm going to guess none. But it takes longer than two weeks to starve to death especially if they went in there with some food. I also don't see them hunting while evading the police.

Would the pair realize that the RCMP wouldn't engage them in a shoot out? Perhaps. The suspects could have exposed their final location by shooting at passers-by on the river. But they didn't. Likely you are right that they wanted to dispatch themselves. Who knows? Their thinking defies all explanation.

As I said, I doubt they were thinking that far ahead. Even if the RCMP ultimately wouldn't engage them in a shootout, they could have tried to attract them to their location and began shooting, if that's what their plan was. Or they even could have hid out not that far into the woods and ambushed the cops when they showed up to process the RAV4 burn scene.