Canada - Marie-France Comeau, 37, & Jessica Lloyd, 27, slain, Ont, 2009 & 2010 - #2

[nobodyzgirl]

I'll use a similar example. The new RCMP commissioner recently announced that the RCMP will no longer be investigating their own officers, with some exceptions, in cases where wrongdoing is alleged.

The RCMP commissioner seems to have understood that the RCMP has a rather large image problem in Canada at the moment. This announcement gives an indication that the RCMP is trying to address public concerns.

Getting back to this case, the military may not realize it yet, but the charges against RW are problematic for the image of the military in Canada, in particular that of military officers. They may not be concerned about their image, but they should be. They are funded by tax dollars, and politicians have been known to listen to the public sometimes when they are in a minority government.
Sure this is just one man, etc., but they need to be aware that one man, and their attitude toward him, shapes public perception. It's about perception. Perception matters.

And in this case, they've sent RW's friend to court to be their "eyes and ears".

BBM

This is just MOO I completely disagree with the bolded statement above. This is one individual who has been accused of some heinious crimes and I don't think it will tarnish the military at all again, it's just MOO.

What attitude towards him? The military has done nothing except assist (and willingly no less) LE with their ongoing investigation, and the fact they sent an officer to report back what happened at a standard court hearing has nothing to do with anything. He is not involved in the case, nor is he even looking for evidence, he's doing his duty - reporting to his superiors as he was requested to do.

Again, this is just my own opinion, there has been nothing the military has done regarding this matter to tarnish my perception of our military and what they stand for.

 

[antiquegirl]

I'll use a similar example. The new RCMP commissioner recently announced that the RCMP will no longer be investigating their own officers, with some exceptions, in cases where wrongdoing is alleged.

The RCMP commissioner seems to have understood that the RCMP has a rather large image problem in Canada at the moment. This announcement gives an indication that the RCMP is trying to address public concerns.

Getting back to this case, the military may not realize it yet, but the charges against RW are problematic for the image of the military in Canada, in particular that of military officers. They may not be concerned about their image, but they should be. They are funded by tax dollars, and politicians have been known to listen to the public sometimes when they are in a minority government.

Sure this is just one man, etc., but they need to be aware that one man, and their attitude toward him, shapes public perception. It's about perception. Perception matters.

And in this case, they've sent RW's friend to court to be their "eyes and ears".

I understand your point. However, I feel that the focus of this forum should be Jessica Lloyd, her alleged murderer, the evidence pertaining to the case, and speculation about the crime and its possible resolution. It's JMO that discussions of public perception re the military and their procedures have no bearing on the case at hand.

Additionally, constant criticism of the military here could backfire and alienate those WS members who are affiliated with same and could provide us with valuable information. I just don't see the relevance or benefit of pursuing the conspiratorial train of thought.

But that's JMO.

 

[Summersolstice]

I understand your point. However, I feel that the focus of this forum should be Jessica Lloyd, her alleged murderer, the evidence pertaining to the case, and speculation about the crime and its possible resolution. It's JMO that discussions of public perception re the military and their procedures have no bearing on the case at hand.

Additionally, constant criticism of the military here could backfire and alienate those WS members who are affiliated with same and could provide us with valuable information. I just don't see the relevance or benefit of pursuing the conspiratorial train of thought.

But that's JMO.

My concern in this is about disclosure. I sincerely hope that the OPP will have full disclosure and full co-operation from the military. I hope that the past is not an indication of the future, and that lessons will be learned this time.

 

[pinkeyesucks]

What I meant is that LE already has DNA for both the 1980s and the more recent crimes. All they need at this point is to compare the two sets to see if the same man committed them all. They don't need RW's sample to do that. When they do get RW's, they can either connect him to the '80s murders or eliminate him.

JMO

Yep they need to get their ducks in order first, and it might not happen until AFTER a conviction.

I am still searching for a Canadian example, but in the meantime here is one link from Stanford-
http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawan...-dna-warrants-and-the-statute-of-limitations/

This is taken from the National DNA Databank Annual report 2008-2009

http://www.nddb-bndg.org/train/docs/Annual_2008-2009_e.pdf

"End or s ement Proc e s s
With the implementation of Bill C-18, police officers are now required to verify with the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) and determine if a convicted offender’s DNA profile already exists in the NDDB
prior to executing an order or authorization. If the DNA profile of an offender is contained in the COI of the NDDB, police officers shall not take any bodily substances from the offender but are required to follow
endorsement instructions and submit a new DNA endorsement form along with the offender’s fingerprints to the NDDB. In 2008-2009 more than 7,200 endorsements were submitted to the NDDB. The purpose of the
endorsement process is to ensure that an offender’s DNA profile remains in the NDDB should the conviction for the initial offence for which the DNA sample was ordered, is overturned on appeal."

And here is an interesting link to show JUST HOW FREAKIN long this process can take...

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/att_0007xe04_e_10802.html

Editing now to complete this thought-

There is a difference between a DNA Warrant, and a DNA Order. A DNA Warrant is done if there is evidence linking the person to the crime. So if they can find evidence linking him to any other crimes before the trail (which I don't think they will since it would be wasted police hours if the case is cut and dry) they can apply for a DNA Warrant and run it against the specific crimes through the database. If they wait until a guilty verdict they request a DNA order and they can run it that way, since the nature of the offense is one of the 265 offenses that will require a DNA sample be required to the bank. His DNA then becomes property of the Convicted Criminal Index.

 

[nobodyzgirl]

My concern in this is about disclosure. I sincerely hope that the OPP will have full disclosure and full co-operation from the military. I hope that the past is not an indication of the future, and that lessons will be learned this time.

The military has already said that LE has their full cooperation in this matter.

 

[antiquegirl]

Yep they need to get their ducks in order first, and it might not happen until AFTER a conviction.

I am still searching for a Canadian example, but in the meantime here is one link from Stanford-
http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawan...-dna-warrants-and-the-statute-of-limitations/

This is taken from the National DNA Databank Annual report 2008-2009

http://www.nddb-bndg.org/train/docs/Annual_2008-2009_e.pdf

"End or s ement Proc e s s
With the implementation of Bill C-18, police officers are now required to verify with the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) and determine if a convicted offender’s DNA profile already exists in the NDDB
prior to executing an order or authorization. If the DNA profile of an offender is contained in the COI of the NDDB, police officers shall not take any bodily substances from the offender but are required to follow
endorsement instructions and submit a new DNA endorsement form along with the offender’s fingerprints to the NDDB. In 2008-2009 more than 7,200 endorsements were submitted to the NDDB. The purpose of the
endorsement process is to ensure that an offender’s DNA profile remains in the NDDB should the conviction for the initial offence for which the DNA sample was ordered, is overturned on appeal."

And here is an interesting link to show JUST HOW FREAKIN long this process can take...

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/att_0007xe04_e_10802.html

I have read similar documentation, but am still confused.

We have all watched fictional TV shows where DNA samples were taken surreptitiously from suspects by LE. Last week-end, I watched a documentary about a real (Canadian) case that I found interesting. The wrong man had been convicted of a murder. DNA evidence had been found at the crime scene, but it was too early at the time to use the technology. Seven years later, the technology was advanced enough to attempt a match and it did not match that of the convicted man. LE then pursued another suspect and put him under surveillance. When this suspect discarded several cigarette butts, the surveillance officer picked them up and had them tested for DNA. It matched those found at the crime scene. LE then proceeded to pull a "Mr. Big" sting on the suspect wherein he confessed to the crime and was subsequently arrested, tried, and convicted.

So, what I'm wondering is can LE secretly obtain DNA samples before a trial, match them to the crime scene, but not use them in court? To me that seems backward - it sounds exactly like a "smoking gun", so I can't understand why it can't be used as evidence.

JMO

 

[pinkeyesucks]

I have read similar documentation, but am still confused.

We have all watched fictional TV shows where DNA samples were taken surreptitiously from suspects by LE. Last week-end, I watched a documentary about a real (Canadian) case that I found interesting. The wrong man had been convicted of a murder. DNA evidence had been found at the crime scene, but it was too early at the time to use the technology. Seven years later, the technology was advanced enough to attempt a match and it did not match that of the convicted man. LE then pursued another suspect and put him under surveillance. When this suspect discarded several cigarette butts, the surveillance officer picked them up and had them tested for DNA. It matched those found at the crime scene. LE then proceeded to pull a "Mr. Big" sting on the suspect wherein he confessed to the crime and was subsequently arrested, tried, and convicted.

So, what I'm wondering is can LE secretly obtain DNA samples before a trial, match them to the crime scene, but not use them in court? To me that seems backward - it sounds exactly like a "smoking gun", so I can't understand why it can't be used as evidence.

JMO

I know that the Toronto Police Force has done that in the past, but I believe that the new legislation the government imposed in 2008-2009 may have put a stop to it, although I am unable to find any current articles relating to that. The main bills in question are c-18

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/Le...=c18&source=library_prb&Parl=39&Ses=1#atheuse

and c-13

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/LegislativeSummaries/37/3/c13-e.pdf

Not sure if these are complete, and I only scanned as I am still knee deep in paint! Freakin old houses with woodwork grrrrrrrrrrrrrr....

 

[fats]

:croc:

I know that the Toronto Police Force has done that in the past, but I believe that the new legislation the government imposed in 2008-2009 may have put a stop to it, although I am unable to find any current articles relating to that. The main bills in question are c-18

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/Le...=c18&source=library_prb&Parl=39&Ses=1#atheuse

and c-13

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/LegislativeSummaries/37/3/c13-e.pdf

Not sure if these are complete, and I only scanned as I am still knee deep in paint! Freakin old houses with woodwork grrrrrrrrrrrrrr....

We should call you antique-girl for all your work!!!

 

[flipflop]

RW was a very smart man, he had everyone fooled with his double life. He was the person that everyone looked up to in the military. No one would every suspect him

Unsolved crimes that have similarities to the Williams’ case will likely be reviewed

It seems that the cases that "have no similarities" to his 2 murders and 2 sexual assaults are reported to have no links to RW's case. True, but, it is statments like the bolded one above that make me think... how often did he change his pattern of assaults/rapes/murders how many of his victims are out there and unsolved. I have been reading unsolved cases, quite a few victims died of stab wounds etc. IMO I feel that RW changed his MO over the years and felt he would never be suspected, never be caught. As my first sentence said, RW was a very smart man, he had everyone fooled!

 

[flipflop]

My concern in this is about disclosure. I sincerely hope that the OPP will have full disclosure and full co-operation from the military. I hope that the past is not an indication of the future, and that lessons will be learned this time.

My thoughts exactly! However it is statements like this:

Kathleen MacVicar's mother said she has a great relationship with the OPP, however the military has not been co-operative.
“They have been very unforthcoming and closed-mouthed. It makes you very suspicious

that makes me wonder!

http://www.capebretonpost.com/index.cfm?sid=325633&sc=145

 

[antiquegirl]

Some of this is familiar from a previous post by pinkeyesucks, but this article is from today's Toronto Star. (The author, "James Morton teaches evidence at Osgoode Hall Law School of York University and is a past president of the Ontario Bar Association.")

So the allegations against Col. Russell Williams, former commander of CFB Trenton, have led to questions of how someone could rise to a position of trust and power while having a criminal double life.

The answer is that serial killers are very different from ordinary murderers. Serial killers are seldom obvious wrongdoers and often escape justice for extended periods. Their motivation is often obscure and while they often choose victims with common characteristics, the deduction and capture of serial killers is not simple. Even identifying a series of killings as being the work of a serial killer can take a long time, and sometimes years elapse before a serial killer is caught.

Serial killing comprises less than 1 per cent of all murders. That said, the killers tend to be more ordinary than fiction would suggest. It is that very ordinariness that allows serial killers to hide in plain sight and evade detection and capture for so long.

More here:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/771023--serial-killers-too-ordinary-to-stand-out

 

[nobodyzgirl]

Some of this is familiar from a previous post by pinkeyesucks, but this article is from today's Toronto Star. (The author, "James Morton teaches evidence at Osgoode Hall Law School of York University and is a past president of the Ontario Bar Association.")





More here:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/771023--serial-killers-too-ordinary-to-stand-out

Thanks for the article AG. This should clear up a lot of things, like how the military didn't realize they had an alleged murder on on their payroll and why he confessed so quickly.

Quote from the article and BBM

The culprit in a typical homicide is so obvious as to make an investigation almost superfluous. In many cases, the killer does nothing to hide the crime and readily confesses to police – indeed, many killers call the police before the crime is discovered. This ease of detection leads to the belief that where a killer is not caught right away someone must have slipped up on the job.

 

[Summersolstice]

Some of this is familiar from a previous post by pinkeyesucks, but this article is from today's Toronto Star. (The author, "James Morton teaches evidence at Osgoode Hall Law School of York University and is a past president of the Ontario Bar Association.")





More here:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/771023--serial-killers-too-ordinary-to-stand-out

I posted a link a while back about military serial killers. The context of the military is a special environment.

The study of psychopathy/antisocial personality disorder is still in its infancy, despite years of research. Personality disorders of all kinds are poorly understood.

 

[nobodyzgirl]

I posted a link a while back about military serial killers. The context of the military is a special environment.

The study of psychopathy/antisocial personality disorder is still in its infancy, despite years of research. Personality disorders of all kinds are poorly understood.

The context of the military is a special environment for what? I'm not sure what you mean by that statement. Can you elaborate please?

 

[RubyRed]

 

[fats]

BBM

This is just MOO I completely disagree with the bolded statement above. This is one individual who has been accused of some heinious crimes and I don't think it will tarnish the military at all again, it's just MOO.

What attitude towards him? The military has done nothing except assist (and willingly no less) LE with their ongoing investigation, and the fact they sent an officer to report back what happened at a standard court hearing has nothing to do with anything. He is not involved in the case, nor is he even looking for evidence, he's doing his duty - reporting to his superiors as he was requested to do.

Again, this is just my own opinion, there has been nothing the military has done regarding this matter to tarnish my perception of our military and what they stand for.

But I don't believe Canadians will blame the Military if RW is found guilty---he would be a random serial killer that might occur in any profession. Although his profile will reveal that he liked a position of control/power.

 

[satchel]

I hope I am not out of line here, but I don't believe that this is a statement made with the intention of putting all "military" people on a chopping block but only to say that there are certain professions which attract certain personality traits. A person can become a police officer because they want to do good for others OR because the power and control suits their personality. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
From what I have read here and I think the purpose of any posts relating to military connection has been for the purpose of exploring how a serial killer could grow in power and go undetected under a military cover and why they might pick the military as a profession to serve a purpose.
Because of the nature of this incident and because two of the individuals involved were members of the military community, there is bound to be some additional scrutinizing as part of the process. I honestly don't think it is ill-intended but put forth in an attempt to look at the whole picture of how this horrible situation came about. MOO

 

[nobodyzgirl]

But I don't believe Canadians will blame the Military if RW is found guilty---he would be a random serial killer that might occur in any profession. Although his profile will reveal that he liked a position of control/power.

ITA agree with you regarding Canadians not blaming the military if RW is found guilty.

 

[pinkeyesucks]

Wasn't Jessica's father a member of the military as well?

Cannot remember where I read that.

Interesting side note.

 

[pinkeyesucks]

The way that this article reads I suspect that there will be a bit of a wait for RW DNA matching to crime scenes. I am taking from this that the first thing that needs to occur is a conviction, and that is when they will run the DNA as a random, instead of only running it against the CSI for the current cases. But I am tired and not sure if I read it right

"Possible matches are identified in one of two ways:
} New DNA profiles entered in the CSI are compared against DNA profiles from other crime scenes. These
matches identify potential links between different crimes which helps investigators to look for other commonalities
that may assist with solving the crimes.
} Comparison of new crime scene or convicted offender entries to associate an offender with a particular crime.
In 2008/2009, the NDDB identified 381 crime scene to crime scene matches, and 2,608 crime scene to convicted
offender matches, bringing the total hits for this fiscal year to 2,989."

But it is unclear to me, if they have this level of technology available, why they have to sit down with people like Paul Bernardo and ask him if he killed a particular person....Does that mean that they don't have any dna evidence from that crime scene, or do they still have to do old fashioned police work to use it as evidence....


IF they get a match....

1- they have to investigate first to see if there is a possiblity of guilt
2-if the DNA will be used in court (eg cold cases that have not gone to trial), they must get a DNA warrant
3-DNA is run against CSI for match
4-if they get a match it is handed back to the investigators, who can then determine if they can lay charges.

So that also means that if they had DNA evidence from the crimes they would have had to petition a judge for a DNA warrant before they could arrest him- IF they had DNA....