Deceased/Not Found Canada - Lyle, 78, & Marie McCann, 77, Alberta, 5 July 2010 #2 *T. Vader guilty*

New Posts

Woodland said:
My observation on some of the judges comments fwiw - his decision to continue with a trial after considering the breach of civil rights after the charges were stayed then resurrected - the judge said 'the decision was close' and favored a trial. Almost six years had passed.

On the fail to disclose 5,000 docs by the RCMP - poor them, it was a mistake that will not be repeated.

The judge is biased imo. Even those that want Vader to be guilty can see that - imo.
Click to expand...

The McCann's deserve justice and, if there are ground for appeal, Vader can appeal. Until that time, the priority is ensuring that what happened to the McCanns does not happen to another elderly couple.
 
Another priority is ensuring an innocent person is not convicted for any crime. Jmo.
 
CBC is giving a sneak preview on some content of closing arguments today -

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...ence-theories-in-travis-vader-trial-1.3646758

The Crown's Theory

"Mr. Vader had a violent confrontation with the McCanns while they were stopped on or near the side of Highway 16 somewhere in the Peers, Alberta area most likely occurring when Mr. Vader was in the process of stealing from them and that during that violent confrontation Mr. Vader murdered either Lyle McCann or Marie McCann.

So the Crown has chosen the Trans-Canada Highway as the location where Vader got control of the McCann's. Did Vader kill one or both of them on the highway - in broad daylight during peak vacation season unseen by anyone? Then what? Vader drove the motorhome somewhere close, walked back to the pick-up and moved it as well? Disposed of the bodies and went back to his buddies place? Was Vader wearing the same clothes? Did he look disheveled?

Other highlights of arguments to come -

The Crown says Vader had to be the one sending those texts and making those calls, writing, "it strains credulity to even consider that it could have been someone else."

The defence insists there is no forensic proof Vader ever had the McCann's cell phone — no fingerprints, no DNA, no witnesses who saw him using it.

Brian Beresh alleges Olson's testimony was "purchased" by the RCMP.

He calls Olson's evidence "clearly carefully selected and rehearsed" and argues "it should be given no weight".

The keys to the McCanns' SUV were discovered by RCMP in the flatbed of a stolen truck linked to Vader.

The Crown does not mention that testimony in its closing argument.
 
Woodland said:
Closing arguments are scheduled to begin tomorrow - I must say Slebby, after your last post I anticipate this even more.

'There's a good chance TV will get away with it' is a quote from your last post. There is no jury and you are not the presiding judge - with all due respect. You claim to have ties to the legal community that want the perp to be caught - regardless of what? Changing the rules so that the accused must must explain evidence against them? An accused should name another suspect? Many children were born today in Canada - their grandchildren will not see the day such changes will be made to our justice system.

How did Vader commit this crime - beyond a reasonable doubt? By comparison he was driving an itty bitty pick-up vs a wonking motorhome - what happened in broad daylight that no one saw?

If and when a not guilty verdict comes down, I have a more than a reasonable alternative fwiw. Statistically who wanted the McCann's to disappear with no doubt they are deceased? Who benefited? How did 2 pieces of paper survive the fire - the bill of sale and the registration - ensuring LE knew who the motorhome belonged to?

There is no doubt in my mind that LE considered this after announcing to the public Vader and only Vader committed this crime. They could not go back after not investigating the burned motorhome the day it was found.

Hate is not going to solve this crime. Jmo.
Click to expand...

Woodlands - I will try to respond to your lengthy post with another lengthy post.

First of all, as I seem to say over and over at Websleuths, THIS IS NOT A COURT OF LAW. I'm not a judge and I'm not on the jury. I can and do have an opinion about TV's guilt, which apparently conflicts with yours. This is an Internet forum where folks can discuss and share their OPINIONS. Apparently I find the evidence against TV to be more compelling than do you. I can't think of a way to explain away some of the evidence.

I'm not a big believer in frame ups or conspiracies.

I'm not sure where you got the "regardless of what"/"Changing the rules" bit.
Let me say this again. I know folks in LE and legal community. Horrible crimes such as this motivate them to seek justice, not find any old defendant to take the fall. So even when their case is not that strong, often they know they have the right perp yet weak evidence. Sometimes this comes down to weak witnesses, or evidence thrown out.

When I said "wouldn't it be nice if TV could be compelled to explain" - that was not a call for change (with respect, you take a comment and knit it into an altogether different thing!) I don't expect the law to change and I never said I did. In fact, were I or a family member charged with a crime, I would want the protections TV has enjoyed. But seeing TV's CBC interview, I am astonished at how smart he thinks he is. If he had taken the stand, I have no doubt he would have cooked his own goose. The man has a hard time with the truth, IMO.

I don't think an exact explanation of how TV overcame an old man is a requirement of believing he did so. I do a lot of highway travel on Alberta highways. I see RVs, they stop beside the highway now and again, or at rest stops (washrooms) I stopped recently, saw a pair of seniors in their RV. Old man got out to go inside, old woman went to rummage around in the back of the RV. At that moment, I could have easily opened the door and climbed in behind her. Do you think it's possible to, say, hold a knife to someone's neck and get her husband to comply with my demands? I do.

Lots of crimes happen in broad daylight. We aren't always on the lookout for folks being overtaken by desperate drug addicts. I know when I'm on the highway, I notice cars or trucks pulled to the side, but I'm paying attention to the road, I don't look or stop. Who knows what can be happening at any given time?

It sounds like your alternative theory, your question about "who has the most to gain?" Is a cruel implication against the surviving family members. Even TV's own lawyer didn't go down that road.

Finally, I agree, the case may not be strong enough for a conviction. Which is why I said he might get away with it.

But IN MY OPINION, tv did it. I will always cheer when he lands in jail again for yet another stupid property crime. He can't help himself. You can call that hate, I call it being realistic. It may not be justice for the victims and their family in this case. But it's something (like seeing OJ go to jail)

All imho





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Woodland said:
My observation on some of the judges comments fwiw - his decision to continue with a trial after considering the breach of civil rights after the charges were stayed then resurrected - the judge said 'the decision was close' and favored a trial. Almost six years had passed.

On the fail to disclose 5,000 docs by the RCMP - poor them, it was a mistake that will not be repeated.

The judge is biased imo. Even those that want Vader to be guilty can see that - imo.
Click to expand...
BBM - Nope, not at all. This judge has been very fair in his rulings and very fair to Vader despite him being late to court several times and thumbing his nose at his release conditions. It wasn't until Vader was caught doing meth and stealing a vehicle and copper wire, while he was in the middle of his double murder trial, did he finally see his bail revoked.
 
Slebby said:
Woodlands - I will try to respond to your lengthy post with another lengthy post.

First of all, as I seem to say over and over at Websleuths, THIS IS NOT A COURT OF LAW. I'm not a judge and I'm not on the jury. I can and do have an opinion about TV's guilt, which apparently conflicts with yours. This is an Internet forum where folks can discuss and share their OPINIONS. Apparently I find the evidence against TV to be more compelling than do you. I can't think of a way to explain away some of the evidence.

I'm not a big believer in frame ups or conspiracies.

I'm not sure where you got the "regardless of what"/"Changing the rules" bit.
Let me say this again. I know folks in LE and legal community. Horrible crimes such as this motivate them to seek justice, not find any old defendant to take the fall. So even when their case is not that strong, often they know they have the right perp yet weak evidence. Sometimes this comes down to weak witnesses, or evidence thrown out.

When I said "wouldn't it be nice if TV could be compelled to explain" - that was not a call for change (with respect, you take a comment and knit it into an altogether different thing!) I don't expect the law to change and I never said I did. In fact, were I or a family member charged with a crime, I would want the protections TV has enjoyed. But seeing TV's CBC interview, I am astonished at how smart he thinks he is. If he had taken the stand, I have no doubt he would have cooked his own goose. The man has a hard time with the truth, IMO.

I don't think an exact explanation of how TV overcame an old man is a requirement of believing he did so. I do a lot of highway travel on Alberta highways. I see RVs, they stop beside the highway now and again, or at rest stops (washrooms) I stopped recently, saw a pair of seniors in their RV. Old man got out to go inside, old woman went to rummage around in the back of the RV. At that moment, I could have easily opened the door and climbed in behind her. Do you think it's possible to, say, hold a knife to someone's neck and get her husband to comply with my demands? I do.

Lots of crimes happen in broad daylight. We aren't always on the lookout for folks being overtaken by desperate drug addicts. I know when I'm on the highway, I notice cars or trucks pulled to the side, but I'm paying attention to the road, I don't look or stop. Who knows what can be happening at any given time?

It sounds like your alternative theory, your question about "who has the most to gain?" Is a cruel implication against the surviving family members. Even TV's own lawyer didn't go down that road.

Finally, I agree, the case may not be strong enough for a conviction. Which is why I said he might get away with it.

But IN MY OPINION, tv did it. I will always cheer when he lands in jail again for yet another stupid property crime. He can't help himself. You can call that hate, I call it being realistic. It may not be justice for the victims and their family in this case. But it's something (like seeing OJ go to jail)

All imho





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Excellent post and I couldn't have said it better myself. Vader is a career criminal and hopeless recidivist, who belongs behinds bars for the rest of his life. I hope justice will finally be served and the McCann family can move forward with their lives, as hard as that will be since their lives have been changed forever by the tragic and senseless murder of their parents. :moo:
 
Woodland said:
Another priority is ensuring an innocent person is not convicted for any crime. Jmo.
Click to expand...

If Vader is not guilty, how did his fingerprints end up inside the McCann's vehicle, and why did he phone his girlfriend using their emergency phone?
 
I personally find it very believable that the McC's could be murdered "in broad daylight" in their RV or at the side of a highway. Next time you pass an RV please do try to describe exactly what is happening either inside it or outside of it on the passenger side of the RV. It would be about as easy as describing what's happening inside or on the far side of any building you pass. An RV is like a building on wheels aka "motor home"?
IMHO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
otto said:
If Vader is not guilty, how did his fingerprints end up inside the McCann's vehicle, and why did he phone his girlfriend using their emergency phone?
Click to expand...

His fingerprints are on a beer can - portable. Cell phone - portable that anyone can use.

That's it for questions?

'If Vader is not guilty' - that is something you have read into a statement and made as fact. That has not been said to date.
 
Slebby said:
I personally find it very believable that the McC's could be murdered "in broad daylight" in their RV or at the side of a highway. Next time you pass an RV please do try to describe exactly what is happening either inside it or outside of it on the passenger side of the RV. It would be about as easy as describing what's happening inside or on the far side of any building you pass. An RV is like a building on wheels aka "motor home"?
IMHO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

For the record, the Crown said it was a violent act and a bloodletting - on the side of the highway. With a stolen pickup parked in front or behind - the parked vehicle is not stated by the Crown or RCMP but a fact according to the meth-timony presented by the Crown.

Let's keep what is said straight, shall we?

Then what happened? That's open as the Crown did not go there.
 
Yes, let's do keep what is said straight, shall we? I fail to see how my post is inconsistent with "a violent act an a bloodletting - on the side of the highway" SMH

Ok, with a stolen pickup potentially parked in front or behind.

So what? Does that make it easier for passers-by to detect a murder is occurring? Do you really not see how it's possible a large RV might block the view of a murder in progress? I do.

IMO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I don't see that a random, violent, bloodletting act occurred on that day, on that highway, in that spot at that time - based on phone calls, texts, fingerprint on a portable beer can and questionable/disputed blood DNA. And a key that could not be accounted for years later.

I do think there is much better explanation than that - only since the RCMP/Crown stayed the charges in 2014. They thought they had problems - I agree.
 
O/T but related as to the RCMP withholding evidence as they did in this case.

Charges against most of the accused, including Tran, were eventually dropped for unreasonable delay and mistakes a judge called “shocking” — including 38 boxes of undisclosed evidence found mid-trial in a police officer’s basement and RCMP storage.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/a...-probe-as-judge-rules-drug-dealer-not-hit-man

Was more than skeptical when the judge in this case ruled that the withholding 5,000 documents by the RCMP from the Crown was nothing more than a mistake and that the RCMP promised it would never be repeated - now I'm sure the judge knew it very much happens within the RCMP.

A disturbing trend imo that has existed for who knows how many years. Does anyone get a fair trial when the RCMP are involved?
 
For the first time at an Alberta criminal trial, television cameras will be allowed into the courtroom on Thursday to record the long-awaited decision in the Travis Vader murder trial.


Court of Queen's Bench Justice Denny Thomas on Tuesday ruled he will allow cameras into the court, after hearing submissions from lawyers representing a consortium of media outlets — including the CBC, Global, CTV, The Canadian Press and Postmedia — that argued for the access.


The Crown in the case argued against allowing cameras.


Vader is charged with two counts of first-degree murder in the July 2010 deaths of seniors Lyle and Marie McCann. After a six-month trial, Thomas is scheduled to hand down his decision in the case on Thursday morning.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...oom-for-travis-vader-murder-verdict-1.3760161
 
It would be interesting to hear the reasoning behind the Crown arguing against cameras for the verdict.
 
Woodland said:
It would be interesting to hear the reasoning behind the Crown arguing against cameras for the verdict.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing here, but perhaps the prosecution is concerned that cameras in the courtroom for the verdict opens the door for cameras in the courtroom for trial, which we know results in trial by media. It has been said that allowing cameras in the courtroom for verdict in this case will ensure that the public understands the decision, and reasons behind the decision, and that the decision to allow cameras in this case does not represent a precedent. Vader is in favour of cameras for the verdict, and perhaps this is the reason it is not precedent setting - not sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 208 more.
Total: 3,707 (members: 209, guests: 3,498)

Online statistics

Members online
209
Guests online
3,498
Total visitors
3,707
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,252
Messages
17,966,205
Members
228,733
Latest member
jbks
Back
Top