Found Deceased Canada - Madison Scott, 20, Vanderhoof, BC, 27 May 2011

[Lalalacasbah]

Yes, one can hope. However, to be realistic, a trial couldn't proceed just based on someone's story. There'd need to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt and that means forensics, data, etc.

Of couse, for sure. A witness corroboration of sorts could open up some flood gates. Wishful thinking... Frustrating no charges but I have hope!

 

[tarabull]

May 28 2025
Snipped...
...In May 2023, police confirmed her remains had been found on a rural property east of Vanderhoof—close to where she was last seen. A search warrant was executed, but no suspects have been publicly named.

https://www.cfnrfm.ca/2025/05/28/madison-scott-investigation-remains-active-nearly-14-years-after-disappearance/

 

[_Laurel_]

Madison was found 2.5 years ago and still not a single update from the RCMP. Isnt that unusual?

 

[Bodine]

Madison was found 2.5 years ago and still not a single update from the RCMP. Isnt that unusual?

Well, the brothers who were last known to be with her and who's property she was found on did pass a polygraph, so they couldn't have had anything to do with her murder. Where can LE go with the investigation? (Sarcasm meter pegged)

 

[_Laurel_]

Hard do believe in 2025 police still put that much weight on a polygraph.
The Blacks were the last to leave, she was found on their property and only somebody local would know there is a body of water on that property to hide something without hikers stumbling over it on accident.
Didnt police even have a search warrant for the propertry and that was how they found her in the first place?

 

[sony12]

This site put a notification on my profile regarding this thread. Looks like I made a couple posts way back in 2016 regarding this case. If I remember right Madison was an individual that went to a party and was never seen leaving the grounds where that party took place at.

So they found her body? Do they suspect foul play or do they think she died of the elements/alcohol poisoning or a wild animal in the area?

Would it even be possible to track down all the individuals who were at a party that took place almost fifteen years ago? If foul play was involved it was most likely someone who was at that party.

 

[Bodine]

This site put a notification on my profile regarding this thread. Looks like I made a couple posts way back in 2016 regarding this case. If I remember right Madison was an individual that went to a party and was never seen leaving the grounds where that party took place at.

So they found her body? Do they suspect foul play or do they think she died of the elements/alcohol poisoning or a wild animal in the area?

Would it even be possible to track down all the individuals who were at a party that took place almost fifteen years ago? If foul play was involved it was most likely someone who was at that party.

She was found buried on the property of the last people known to be at the party with her, 20 miles away from the campsite where her belongings still were.

 

[sony12]

She was found buried on the property of the last people known to be at the party with her, 20 miles away from the campsite where her belongings still were.

Ok so if she was buried she obviously did die at the hands of someone or at the very least her death was an accident yet they still were trying to cover it up.

If her body was found on the property of the people who were known to be at the party with her though not sure why it is taking so long to close the case.

 

[Bodine]

Ok so if she was buried she obviously did die at the hands of someone or at the very least her death was an accident yet they still were trying to cover it up.

If her body was found on the property of the people who were known to be at the party with her though not sure why it is taking so long to close the case.

They passed polygraphs and were eliminated as suspects early on.

 

[_Laurel_]

She was found buried on the property of the last people known to be at the party with her, 20 miles away from the campsite where her belongings still were.

Wasnt she found in a body of water?

 

[Bodine]

Wasnt she found in a body of water?

No, buried on land.

 

[sony12]

They passed polygraphs and were eliminated as suspects early on.

Well chances are extremely slim though that it's a coincidence she was buried there. It had to have been someone they all knew and was likely there that night. They could have been setting them up and knew those individuals were one of the last ones to leave.

 

[Nicki80]

Well, the brothers who were last known to be with her and who's property she was found on did pass a polygraph, so they couldn't have had anything to do with her murder. Where can LE go with the investigation? (Sarcasm meter pegged)

Passing a polygraph test doesn’t mean you’re innocent. Plus I highly doubt they were given one.

 

[ZaZara]

Polygraph tests are not admissible in court as evidence in criminal trials in Canada.

'Courts have found polygraph results to be unnecessary, unreliable and risky as evidence in criminal trials.'

Polygraph tests | Provincial Court of British Columbia

 

[missdeemenour]

Even with her body found on the Blacks property, it would be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they did it, so long after it happened. I don’t know enough about the investigation but it’s a shame that the police weren’t able to search that property years ago, when she first went missing.

I still think about this case all time because Maddie seemed to have such spirit, and because her family loved her so much. They did an incredible job of keeping this case in the public consciousness, simply because they couldn’t give up hope that she was alive

 

[beubeubeu]

Passing a polygraph test doesn’t mean you’re innocent. Plus I highly doubt they were given one.

Well, it was concluded pretty much from the very beginning that they were last to leave so itd be pretty strange decision to polygraph hundreds of people but not the most red-flag shining suspects.

Polygraph tests are not admissible in court as evidence in criminal trials in Canada.

'Courts have found polygraph results to be unnecessary, unreliable and risky as evidence in criminal trials.'

Polygraph tests | Provincial Court of British Columbia

No need to have them admissible in court if notoriously used by cops to rule out suspects? Ruled out suspects are not taken to court.

 

[Bodine]

Passing a polygraph test doesn’t mean you’re innocent. Plus I highly doubt they were given one.

They were given one according to LE and passed, hence they were no longer being considered as suspects. Of course, until her remains were found on the brothers' property. Oops.

The point of my post was polygraphs are a joke and shouldn't be used at all, anywhere. The fact that many LE communities still use them and rely on their results is just embarrassing given what is and has been known for decades about how unreliable they are.

 

[beubeubeu]

They were given one according to LE and passed, hence they're no longer being considered as suspects. Of course, until her remains were found on the brothers' property. Oops.

The point of my post was polygraphs are a joke and shouldn't be used at all, anywhere. The fact that many LE communities still use them and rely on their results is just embarrassing given what is and has been known for decades about how unreliable they are.

Well, according to RCMP everybody passed polygraph. Which is ludicrous and impossible in pretty much everybody's opinion.
Nobodys gonna get "all passed" results polygraphing 20 people, not to mention more.

Forks arent a joke when youre earting spaghetti, but they are if you want to eat soup with it. Polygraphs proven themselves to be pretty useful, its just not a tool that can be used as magic that tells truth from lies, and it was clear in 2011 that they cant. And theyre only as good as person's doing them's understanding of whole process. Its a good way to learn more about the suspect or witness and possibly getting some hints where to look for proofs and evidence in investigation.

 

[Bodine]

Well, according to RCMP everybody passed polygraph. Which is ludicrous and impossible in pretty much everybody's opinion.
Nobodys gonna get "all passed" results polygraphing 20 people, not to mention more.

Forks arent a joke when youre earting spaghetti, but they are if you want to eat soup with it. Polygraphs proven themselves to be pretty useful, its just not a tool that can be used as magic that tells truth from lies, and it was clear in 2011 that they cant. And theyre only as good as person's doing them's understanding of whole process. Its a good way to learn more about the suspect or witness and possibly getting some hints where to look for proofs and evidence in investigation.

Except the results are completely unreliable, so, even as an investigative tool to ferret out bits of information, they are useless. How does one use information garnered from a polygraph when one can't even be sure that information is accurate? It leads LE to chase leads and form opinions based on absolutely unreliable information. That's insanity.

European countries, while not illegal there, do not use them at all for that reason.

Loved your spaghetti/soup analogy

 

[beubeubeu]

Except the results are completely unreliable, so, even as an investigative tool to ferret out bits of information, they are useless. How does one use information garnered from a polygraph when one can't even be sure that information is accurate? It leads LE to chase leads and form opinions based on absolutely unreliable information. That's insanity.

European countries, while not illegal there, do not use them at all for that reason.

Loved your spaghetti/soup analogy

First time I hear that polygraphs are not used in Europe, where I've spend all my life. They are used pretty often, few countries have them admissible in court as expert opinions but even there theyre not not tell-it-all's.
Austria and Germany have them completely inadmissible in court, but they can be used.

Its more like just as a source of possible additional info. If you ask 6 people to do polygraph and 5 of them agree right away while 6th says absolutely not - thats an info. It doesnt mean that person is guilty or hiding anything, they may just feel very nervous and fear of being falsely suspected of lying. So not a proof or clear indication. But then if you learn more about this person and then know that theyre never seemed that precautious before and that refusal stoods out - thats the reason to look at them closely. Not get blind to everything else and zero-in on him cause he didnt wanted to take polygraph.

Or you have a crime almost certainly commited by one person. Few suspects with criminal past. One "passes" with flying colors, rest have it inconclusive or it looks like they were lying. That, depending on the context and additional info investigators have about these people may actually get them interested in that one who flawlessly passed.

Polygraphing & strongly relying on it & zero-in'ing on people who failed is very faulible. High, high risk of wild goose chase and having perp walk free and unbothered.
But thats an occasion to learn more about the suspect. You cant take it as a gospel, but neither you can take witness statement that they saw green truck as 100% accurate. Cause that car could be grey or blue and just appear green cause of the light and surroundings. Or person may remember green truck cause it was the biggest car there. Or you can have someone who just says that to say something and they dont remember anything specific about the car actually.
Have 10 witnesses. All describe different cars, different colors but all say it was a truck and 5 of them remembered distinctive bumper sticker. Thats a good indication to pay particular interest to trucks with distinctive bumper stickers.

Investigations are like this big puzzles where some pieces are missing, some you can be sure of, some you can deem as very likely from this set but you dont know how they fit - but with most you dont even know if theyre puzzle pieces at all.

But back to the topic cause my main point is actually elsewhere as IMO that discussion about polygraphs being useful/not reliable/not is pretty much irrelevant here.
Its not hard to find people who believe that polygraphs are useful - but even with those people, experts, investigators. I remember that from years back, people were just utterly confused. Because...

How do you even polygraph 50 people?
One polygraph done right (still not a tell-all, still not 100% accuracy non-fallible gospel but just done right - just to even begin looking at it as possibly useful source of info or a point in further conclusions) requires hours of preparation + let's say an hour to do it + some time to analyze it. One expert can reasonably do more than one such test in one workday. Thats easily 2 months of work. To polygraph "just" 50 people.
Take that times four in this case. Cause thats what they claimed to do. Polygraph almost 200 people.
T W O___H U N D R E D S.
~50 people known to visit the party Madison was at. ~150 people were there next day.
One year anniversary of Maddy's disappearance RCMP stated that they polygraphed "almost everyone" from these two groups.
So one expert was doing nothing but polygraphing relentlessly for 10 months straight? Or they have 5 of those and it took them only two months?
Is it probable that it happened this way? That it was preceeded with gathering some info about each kid, gathering some context, taking into consideration that those already polygraphed likely will talk about it with others, that would be just unimagibly immense task. How on Earth they would even get funds for something like this?
That was probably like 10-15 mins thing, with minimal preparation and same or very similar set of questions for everybody: were you at the party? saw Maddie? heard something? suspect someone? did you hurt Maddy? do you know what happened? & thanks, bye. Or it didnt happened at all and RCMP said that as a way to mislead whoever to get whatever out of it, maybe those who refused to start acting nervously with that sudden realization that everyone else did it but not them.