https://soundcloud.com/michael-spra...rer-after-show-special-guest-scott-fairgrieve
Dr. Fairgrieve: he didn't like that the anthropologist deemed her death to be from homicidal violence (he makes a comment a bit later that it would be the Coroner here in Ontario that would do that) He knew Dr. Eisenberg before the trial. He thought they at least had somebody that he thought knew what she was doing (hahaha). He agreed with 85% of what Eisenberg reported. He actually looked at the xrays before doing this podcast to refresh his memory, he agrees about the gun shot wounds... but says no way he could say what her cause of death was (was she strangled before? did she have a stroke? etc.)
Around the 28-29min mark: One of the most important area's about the scene are where the remains are, and one needs to be extremely careful with the recovery and the documentation, and uncovering the remains. Geesh... he goes on to talk about how important it is to remove those bones carefully and it would have been able to tell us whether they were moved there or not... basically saying because they shovelled and sifted her remains, they couldn't. He says... the first thing you do is... WAIT FOR AN EXPERT that knows what bone looks like! (geesh I don't feel so
bad about questioning this process now) He said that was not followed here.... one of the most important aspects of this whole thing.... they should have waited for an expert, it would have answered a whole bunch of questions. (IMO this leads me to believe... they may have already known the answer and didn't want an expert there.... and people wonder why some of us have doubts smh) He says the photography was terrible. And the photography was not done by a police officer... it was done by a photography student (he was told by buting/stang) <<< GEESH! GEESH! GEESH! and double GEESH! He does have some photo's that were taken... of buckets of stuff, no record of them though or paper trail.
Talks about the bones being moved... how he didn't necessarily agree with her "they weren't moved". He talks about cases he's had where the majority were moved. Talks about trying to burn a body on an open fire.... not easy. Had a case that it took the guy 2-3 days. He took issue with the burnpit being the main burn site.... there were other (better) ways on the property to burn her. He says the burn barrel would actually be better, but he hasn't seen it, so he can't say if that's where she was burned either.
The biggest thing that irked him was... the homicidal violence opinion. He can't figure out why or how she could make the determination... he says the prosecutor (not Kratz) was not happy with him LOL
They talk about the guilty of murder/ not guilty of mutilation of a corpse verdicts. He says that Stang/Buting talked to him quite a bit... shared their suspicions about Lenk... but never ever did they ever insinuate that he or LE had anything to do with her death.
His opinion, not as an expert.... but just because they asked him.... the RAV4 with her blood in the back of it... indicates that she was there, and why would he put her there to take her to his back yard to burn her? He thinks she was transported in the vehicle to where-ever and then removed and then the vehicle was taken to the the yard. He said the questions are... where was she taken? and then how did her remains get back to the pit? <<<< I'm only sharing this because I think it might give some insight into what Buting/Stang thought at the time because he talked to them. He doesn't say SA or anyone else doing it... just a theory.
It was a good podcast! Glad I listened to it, now I have to go to bed LOL