@ wondergirl, you are most welcome, thank you and everyone else for the all the informative and thought provoking posts
@ Matou I wasnt aware there was supposed to be other events that weekend other then the ones held by the city which were represented in the link I provided. I looked into your link and discovered that the idea of a musical event by the band Cod Gone Wild was a misprint by a company which promotes such events for clubs etc.
The facebook profile for the band and wall can be found in its entirety here
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Cod-Gone-Wild/339474838923?sk=wall
Of course this still doesnt rule out a possible temporary employment connection related to the actual Halloween festivities themselves. Although I would hope that if someone was late or a no show or appeared disheveled/scratched up upon arrival these facts would be included with their names in the tips provided to RCMP thus far. It will be interesting to see how the assailant came to be here on Halloween. I do have confidence he will be caught despite the 6yr old sketch , his previous crime and this one are in huge contrast with regards to media coverage and public outrage. I Unfortunately believe that in April 2005 the media coverage was minimal and the public not as concerned due to the victims profession/high risk lifestyle. This is all too common tragedy for these women and probably the reason why most assaults go unreported by them. I am not sure when we as a society will come the very realization that if these offenders can do it to these women then it will only be a matter of time before they find an opportunity to victimize a person of a more socially acceptable standing (This societal mind I am referring to is only my opinion and based on how I perceive the difference in coverage and public outrage to be in relation to the victims background) , after all in most cases it is probably less about their professions and more about the opportunistic nature of these types of offenders.
@ dotr IRT possible DNA on the letter leading to a match in Taylors investigation.
I dont know if the police would have results for any DNA they may have been able to get from the letter, yet. Processing the results in Taylors case took about 3 weeks and would have been of highest priority (unfortunately we have a huge back log in all of our labs, making for longer then desirable wait times) and the letter was not received until Nov 9th, making any DNA results it may provide roughly 9 days behind her results. I may be totally wrong though, this is just my thoughts on it. Due to this I think the central and north Okanagan warning that came along with divulging the received letter had other reason(s) behind it. (e.g. a broadened scope to be cautious, perhaps a mail trace shows it came from someplace other then Armstrong even though it was delivered to the Armstrong detachment). The whole letter aspect is puzzling at best for me. I really hope they are able to trace it one way or another, be it DNA or mail trace. I am not sure how our mail system works really (letters are sort of a dinosaur notion now and the mail system is something I have little experience with). I would be interested to know if it is possible to trace mail in all/most circumstances back to its original pickup place (e.g. If a letter is sent from one town to another within the same region or sent from one address to another within the same town, can one or both be traced back to its original pick up location?)
@ silly billy I am sure he will be rightly flogged in prison, too bad he will most likely not spend his natural life in there being subjected to it.
I went and refreshed my recollection of our DNA identification act and found no criteria that mandated at least 2 convictions. The legalities behind collecting offender DNA is not number of crimes but rather the classification of crime(s) committed. Also I think it is important to explain that in Canada these designated offenses are not blanketed by a mandatory DNA order but rather are added on a case by case basis according to the requests of the crown, discretion of the judge and classification of the crime. Upon refreshing my recollection I found a recent review of our DNA information act . It is most interesting and enlightening, apparently the databank receives about 39,000 new samples per year under the current way we apply the act in collection of samples from known offenders. If this process was changed to mandatory collection and addition of DNA samples into the database for convicted offenders of the specified crime classifications this number would jump to about 113,000 per year. Currently our labs couldnt handle it as they are not even funded well enough to handle their present demand. Apparently one of the 3 main Canadian labs has such a back log they have started to refuse/send back some samples inc those belonging to the crime scene/unknown offender classification samples. Without the processing of these samples the RCMP wouldnt have been able to make the 2005 connection to Taylors investigation. It makes me sad to think about other crimes where these possible connections could be made but havent been as of yet due to inadequate funding, its a shame to say the least.
http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collection_2009/parl/XC76-402-1-1-01E.pdf
http://www.nddb-bndg.org/main_e.htm
The addition of JF got me to thinking about a myriad of issues as it relates to these type of offenders and what the perpetrator in Taylors murder might be likely to do next.
The most important of these issues was their recidivism rate. The prognosis is grim, although not as high as I has assumed it to be. It seems momentum and age are key when it comes to this issue, the longer they sustain from their deviant behavior the less likely they are to re-offend, the older they are when convicted the less likely they are to re-offend. Unfortunately the younger they are and the presence of previous sexual offense increases the recidivism rate. Unfortunately the studies did not include subgroups that I personally think would be of importance, these groups would be
An offender who had a previous sexual offense with escalation noted in the 2 offense (e.g. level 1 sexual assault as the first charge then level 2 or 3 as the second) I think this subgroups recidivism rate could be of real importance when it comes to prevention IRT sentencing guidelines and treatment and risk to society. Study of this subgroup could even potentially help in predicting a timeline till the next offense.
Another subgroup which I feel would be of interest to track but may not be directly related to Taylors murder would be offenders whos first offense was not sexual but whos second offense was, the recidivism rate of this group could be particularly helpful IRT prevention, risk to society and treatment as well. I came to this conclusion due to the fact that about 50% of those accused of a sexual offense already have existing criminal record that wasnt the result of a sexual offense. In the studies, sexual offenders who have a previous conviction of the same nature are at a higher recidivism rate. So as a result I am wondering what the rate of re-offending would be for a person who had a previous non sexual conviction and current sexual conviction
.. I hope I explained that well enough to get my thought process across.
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/2004-03-se-off-eng.aspx#app-02
http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/police_services/publications/special_surveys/sexfinal.pdf
As a whole I see our sentences for sex offenders as too light and drastically disproportionate to the damage they cause their victims and communities. The next thing I think I need to understand better is the criteria needed to legally confirm someone as a dangerous offender and what all this title allows the judicial system to do IRT protecting the public from them. It seems to me this distinction ether isnt given out often (possibly rigorous criteria) or the extra discretion this distinction allows the court is not effective enough to keep the public safe from them. Other wise we shouldnt be seeing warnings about offenders who are being released into our communities who are at a high risk to re-offend, should we?
JF and the person in the following article are very recent and good examples of my above concern
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Police+warn+high+risk+offender+living+Surrey/5733554/story.html
JF and AJ should both have been deemed dangerous offenders IMO
.. AJ was all over the news in the weeks leading up to Taylors murder due to the fact he was going to be released into Kelowna, ether the day of or the day before he was to be released into Kelowna he changed his mind and moved to Surry. I am at a loss as to why he is allowed to choose where he lives in the first place, especially in light of the fact his offenses were in a different province. With his high risk of re-offending should he not have been deemed a dangerous offender and keep incarcerated? Or at the very least released to a place with ample resources to keep track of him and provide treatment?
another novel :crazy:
and the judicial system.
