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

[Woodland]

I agree for the most part .. the 1 thing I can not get past is TV's DNA found on the beer can in the McCann's SUV.

A beer can in a vehicle? That's it? How portable is that?

Imo - this was a targeted attack - but not by TV. I do think TV was targeted to take the fall and the RCMP were more than willing to accommodate given their first major and public screw up - doing nothing when the burned out SUV was found.

All of the so-called evidence is portable. And fwiw - that meth-timony put on by the Crown and RCMP really bugs me. Meth addicts were discounted in the 'pig farmer' trial. What was so special about this trial?

 

[Slebby]

A beer can in a vehicle? That's it? How portable is that?

Imo - this was a targeted attack - but not by TV. I do think TV was targeted to take the fall and the RCMP were more than willing to accommodate given their first major and public screw up - doing nothing when the burned out SUV was found.

All of the so-called evidence is portable. And fwiw - that meth-timony put on by the Crown and RCMP really bugs me. Meth addicts were discounted in the 'pig farmer' trial. What was so special about this trial?

What is your evidence for this 1. being a targeted attack and 2. That TV was targeted to take the fall?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Hez]

I would imagine it is not just the cell phone, but the cell phone records, that tie to Vader (i.e. did he call his sister, etc?).

As for linking Vader to the RV, I believe the forensic evidence found in the McCann's SUV is how he is tied to their RV (i.e. did they find Vader's DNA or fingerprints inexplicably in the SUV?).

from the cbc article:

A Crown firearms expert testified Tuesday at the Travis Vader murder trial that a blood-spattered ball cap belonging to Lyle McCann had a bullet hole in it. More at the link:

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/crime/firearms-expert-testifies-at-vader-murder-trial-that-cap-belonging-to-victim-had-bullet-hole

I think the judge is getting tired of his excuses. Being late once is bad enough, but 4 times is ridiculous.

Travis Vader may be sent back to jail after he showed up late for his trial for the fourth time Wednesday morning.
More at the link:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...under-review-after-he-shows-up-late-1.3533819

Bloodstains on items found in an SUV belonging to St. Albert couple Lyle and Marie McCann, who disappeared in July 2010, are consistent with the seniors being subjected to some type of force, court heard Monday. More at the link:

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/crime/missing-edmonton-area-couples-blood-found-in-their-suv

Closing arguments for Vader today. Vader used the McCann's phone to call his girlfriend, and he visited a friend using McCann's vehicle.

"The Crown points to Vader's DNA found on the steering wheel and arm rest of the McCanns' SUV, on a can of beer in the front seat cup holder and on two of Lyle McCann's baseball hats found inside the vehicle."

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

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?

It's interesting imo how people see this case - not meaning to lean on this post alone - but, did TV commit this crime of not?

There are many, many posts that cite TV's past behavior as a reason to put him behind bars for years to come. Maybe that is warranted - but that is not what he is on trial for.

Cannot quote a single post where evidence against him in this crime is cited. Not one - but maybe someone else could find one. Even the quoted post goes both ways.

Imo, no one really knows the truth or what to think exactly - only what they are being told to believe. Not the form of justice I like to see in my country.

BUBM - I completely disagree with you. I have been on this board for a decade and the posters here are perfectly capable of evaluating the evidence presented to them, and drawing their own conclusions based on their own evaluation of that evidence, whether it be direct or circumstantial.

As for your assertion that there is not a single post in this thread citing the evidence against him, I quoted several posts, including my own, that do just that. As for my personal belief in his guilt, it is based on a totality of the evidence against him and it was the forensic evidence in particular that completely sealed my opinion that he is guilty of murdering Lyle and Marie McCann.

 

[Slebby]

I can't think of an innocent reason for TV to have been in possession of the SUV, or for Lyle's blood spattered hat and another hat in Lyle and Marie's SUV to have TV's DNA on it. I don't believe in coincidence, like the coincidence that TV ended up with the missing seniors' cell phone in his possession, their SUV and a windfall of cash at the very same time the seniors vanished. I don't believe in a coincidence in which the senior couple were victimized twice, by 2 completely different perpetrators, The Murderer who then stole and burned their RV (burning things, coincidentally being an admittedly common TV MO for disposing of vehicles) and TV, a mere car thief and borrower of cell phones.
It's a shame, the defence never offered an innocent reason for all of this, nor an explanation about who set him up and how.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[kdgdid]

A beer can in a vehicle? That's it? How portable is that?

Imo - this was a targeted attack - but not by TV. I do think TV was targeted to take the fall and the RCMP were more than willing to accommodate given their first major and public screw up - doing nothing when the burned out SUV was found.

All of the so-called evidence is portable. And fwiw - that meth-timony put on by the Crown and RCMP really bugs me. Meth addicts were discounted in the 'pig farmer' trial. What was so special about this trial?

I think most times the simplest solution is the correct 1.
No evidence was brought forth that I saw that TV was a target.

 

[Woodland]

BUBM - I completely disagree with you. I have been on this board for a decade and the posters here are perfectly capable of evaluating the evidence presented to them, and drawing their own conclusions based on their own evaluation of that evidence, whether it be direct or circumstantial.

As for your assertion that there is not a single post in this thread citing the evidence against him, I quoted several posts, including my own, that do just that. As for my personal belief in his guilt, it is based on a totality of the evidence against him and it was the forensic evidence in particular that completely sealed my opinion that he is guilty of murdering Lyle and Marie McCann.

UBM - this post reads that there is always a consensus on the evidence.

The evidence is portable - and does not say much to me.

Fwiw, I would require an answer to at least two questions in order to become a believer in TV's guilt.

1 - how did TV move a motorhome towing an SUV and the white pick-up he was said to be driving between the side of the TransCanada highway and the trailer park where the motorhome was burned - about 6 kms or so.

The Crown said this crime took place on the side of the TC highway at or near the intersection of the road that leads to the park.

The judge arbitrarily changed that to the crime took place at the park - that TV encountered the McCann's at the park. The park was not in any way the destination of the McCann's.

2 - how did 'some guy' manage to pull the ownership of the motorhome out of the burning motorhome? It's paper! Who reaches into a burning motorhome - those things go up in flames in no time. This 'guy' drove from the road/highway after calling 911 and pulled the paperwork that would identify the motorhome as belong to the McCann's and only the McCann's.

One report said the paperwork was found 'tucked' under a rock and easily retrieved - that report is non-existent now. The 'guy's' identity was kept under wraps until the time of trial. So what is is history?

Another thing that 'bugs' me is, the DNA 'found' on the beer can was not detected the first time it was tested. The RCMP lab had to wait for better technology to find it - how did they know it was there if the first test showed nothing? That was the report - nothing was found.
So what caused them to go back and re-test if nothing showed up the first time?

I would believe that if the first report said something was there, but we could not determine a unique individual at that time.

Hauling in meth addicts to testify - please.

TV is no saint - nor do I think he murdered the McCanns'. I think this was much 'closer to home'. Jmo.

 

[Woodland]

Oh - and a key for the McCann's SUV found in the back of the stolen white pick-up that TV was driving?

When a forensic person went to examine the SUV - there was no key on record. He had to have one cut - there was testimony to this.

Waving these things off with 'I don't know' is a problem imo.

 

[otto]

It's interesting imo how people see this case - not meaning to lean on this post alone - but, did TV commit this crime of not?

There are many, many posts that cite TV's past behavior as a reason to put him behind bars for years to come. Maybe that is warranted - but that is not what he is on trial for.

Cannot quote a single post where evidence against him in this crime is cited. Not one - but maybe someone else could find one. Even the quoted post goes both ways.

Imo, no one really knows the truth or what to think exactly - only what they are being told to believe. Not the form of justice I like to see in my country.

Vader was not convicted for prior bad acts. He was convicted of murdering the couple, burning their RV, and stealing their SUV. There is clear evidence connecting Vader to the McCann's SUV, and there's evidence in the SUV indicating that the McCann's are deceased.

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/cri...-that-cap-belonging-to-victim-had-bullet-hole

 

[otto]

To those who don't believe that Vader targeted the couple, used their cell phone, murdered them, burned their RV, and stole their SUV, are you 100% comfortable having him free to do this again?

 

[otto]

A beer can in a vehicle? That's it? How portable is that?

Imo - this was a targeted attack - but not by TV. I do think TV was targeted to take the fall and the RCMP were more than willing to accommodate given their first major and public screw up - doing nothing when the burned out SUV was found.

All of the so-called evidence is portable. And fwiw - that meth-timony put on by the Crown and RCMP really bugs me. Meth addicts were discounted in the 'pig farmer' trial. What was so special about this trial?

If all evidence is excluded except the beer can, then yes, it is reasonable to question the verdict. Thankfully, the trial included a lot more evidence.

 

[Woodland]

UBM - this post reads that there is always a consensus on the evidence.

The evidence is portable - and does not say much to me.

Fwiw, I would require an answer to at least two questions in order to become a believer in TV's guilt.

1 - how did TV move a motorhome towing an SUV and the white pick-up he was said to be driving between the side of the TransCanada highway and the trailer park where the motorhome was burned - about 6 kms or so.

The Crown said this crime took place on the side of the TC highway at or near the intersection of the road that leads to the park.

The judge arbitrarily changed that to the crime took place at the park - that TV encountered the McCann's at the park. The park was not in any way the destination of the McCann's.

2 - how did 'some guy' manage to pull the ownership of the motorhome out of the burning motorhome? It's paper! Who reaches into a burning motorhome - those things go up in flames in no time. This 'guy' drove from the road/highway after calling 911 and pulled the paperwork that would identify the motorhome as belong to the McCann's and only the McCann's.

One report said the paperwork was found 'tucked' under a rock and easily retrieved - that report is non-existent now. The 'guy's' identity was kept under wraps until the time of trial. So what is is history?

Another thing that 'bugs' me is, the DNA 'found' on the beer can was not detected the first time it was tested. The RCMP lab had to wait for better technology to find it - how did they know it was there if the first test showed nothing? That was the report - nothing was found.
So what caused them to go back and re-test if nothing showed up the first time?

I would believe that if the first report said something was there, but we could not determine a unique individual at that time.

Hauling in meth addicts to testify - please.

TV is no saint - nor do I think he murdered the McCanns'. I think this was much 'closer to home'. Jmo.

Still have the same questions - plus the key. No answers seem forthcoming.

 

[otto]

Still have the same questions - plus the key. No answers seem forthcoming.

The only way to get those answers is to attend the trial and listen to the evidence. What is reported in the news is a fraction of the evidence. Perhaps a trial reporter who listened to all the evidence has more answers.

 

[Woodland]

My questions come from testimony at this trial.

 

[Slebby]

UBM - this post reads that there is always a consensus on the evidence.

The evidence is portable - and does not say much to me.

Fwiw, I would require an answer to at least two questions in order to become a believer in TV's guilt.

1 - how did TV move a motorhome towing an SUV and the white pick-up he was said to be driving between the side of the TransCanada highway and the trailer park where the motorhome was burned - about 6 kms or so.

The Crown said this crime took place on the side of the TC highway at or near the intersection of the road that leads to the park.

The judge arbitrarily changed that to the crime took place at the park - that TV encountered the McCann's at the park. The park was not in any way the destination of the McCann's.

2 - how did 'some guy' manage to pull the ownership of the motorhome out of the burning motorhome? It's paper! Who reaches into a burning motorhome - those things go up in flames in no time. This 'guy' drove from the road/highway after calling 911 and pulled the paperwork that would identify the motorhome as belong to the McCann's and only the McCann's.

One report said the paperwork was found 'tucked' under a rock and easily retrieved - that report is non-existent now. The 'guy's' identity was kept under wraps until the time of trial. So what is is history?

Another thing that 'bugs' me is, the DNA 'found' on the beer can was not detected the first time it was tested. The RCMP lab had to wait for better technology to find it - how did they know it was there if the first test showed nothing? That was the report - nothing was found.
So what caused them to go back and re-test if nothing showed up the first time?

I would believe that if the first report said something was there, but we could not determine a unique individual at that time.

Hauling in meth addicts to testify - please.

TV is no saint - nor do I think he murdered the McCanns'. I think this was much 'closer to home'. Jmo.

1. TV encounters the McC's, overpower them, and takes the driver's seat of the RV (leaves his truck parked) He disposes of the bodies of the seniors, drives the RV to the park, takes the SUV (and cell phone and cash) and leaves the RV burning to destroy any evidence. Drives around in the SUV (was witnessed doing so) before returning to the truck. Doesn't have to be 6 km away.

2. I don't know about this detail - someone retrieved the papers? Can you furnish a link? I assumed the RV was identified as theirs by the license plates.

I don't find it surprising they went back to retest for DNA on the empty beer can. How did the can become empty? Usually it's because someone drank the beer in it. Hence the need to retest for DNA that must be there.

There was also TV DNA on the armrest and on the steering wheel of the SUV. Not really portable, unless one happens to be carrying around a vial of his...spit.

They had to haul in the meth addicts - that's who TV, the meth addict hung out with, not nuns, class valedictorians, or upstanding citizens.

I wish you would elaborate on a "closer to home" theory, and the evidence for that, evidence which, to you, apparently is stronger than the evidence used to convict TV.

IMO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

My questions come from testimony at this trial.

The trial was not recorded, so only those who were in the courtroom have the answers. The media reported highlights, such as the fact that Lyle's cap with his blood was found with a bullet hole in the SUV, Vader was known to be in possession of the McCann SUV, Vader used the McCann cell phone, and so on.

 

[Slebby]

@Woodland - never mind about finding a link about the registration papers - I found one.

I found a link re the finding of the registration.

http://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/foul-play-suspected-in-case-of-missing-st-albert-couple-1.532850

This article states:
RCMP say an Edson RCMP officer came across the burning RV and was able to pull information from the registration card. The officer attempted to call the registered owner of the RV, but that was unsuccessful.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Woodland]

@Woodland - never mind about finding a link about the registration papers - I found one.

I found a link re the finding of the registration.

http://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/foul-play-suspected-in-case-of-missing-st-albert-couple-1.532850

This article states:
RCMP say an Edson RCMP officer came across the burning RV and was able to pull information from the registration card. The officer attempted to call the registered owner of the RV, but that was unsuccessful.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The RCMP officer was handed the registration papers - the quote does not say this officer retrieved them from the burning motorhome.

Some guy somehow knew where to reach into the burning motorhome in order to pull out the registration - and original bill of sale.

Nonsense imo.

 

[Woodland]

The trial was not recorded, so only those who were in the courtroom have the answers. The media reported highlights, such as the fact that Lyle's cap with his blood was found with a bullet hole in the SUV, Vader was known to be in possession of the McCann SUV, Vader used the McCann cell phone, and so on.

So TV shot Lyle in the head outside of the SUV - a shot that went through his hat brim first but had no blood and brain matter from LM on it - then TV picked up the hat and put it in the SUV?

Why did TV put canned food from the motorhome in the SUV - canned food that blood spatter from MM on it?

Why would a meth addict looking for money do this? Also wondering why a meth addict looking for quick money, and nothing else according to most who speak, would go to the trouble of killing this couple and hiding both bodies - so well that they have never been found. Wouldn't a meth addict just take off after grabbing some money and buy drugs?

I don't get that.

How did the stolen white pick-up and the SUV end up so many miles away from the burn site? One person?

 

[Slebby]

Ok, Woodland.
Can you then provide a link that says "some guy" pulled the registration and gave it to the officer? I can only go with the info I have found, and I have asked you to furnish a link. Or evidence. Thanks.

I just don't see why the papers are important - if I was IDing a vehicle, I'd look at the plates
(In fact, I recently needed to identify the owner of a vicious dog at a dog park. I wasn't thinking "if only I could get inside their car so I could check their registration!" I was thinking "there they go in that car. I'm going to write down the license plate")

Let's say the registration papers were never found. So what? Do you think the RV would be totally impossible to ID as belonging to the McCs if not for the papers allegedly found by "some guy"?

IMO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Slebby]

A question I have, related to the stolen truck where the Hyundai key was found - was the stolen truck found and immediately linked to the McC missing case? Or was it found, considered a stolen truck recovered, taken to impound, and left there for awhile before police made the connection between the McC case, TV and the truck? If the latter, it would explain to me why the police did not initially find the key. IMO, there is a very different level of searching a vehicle for evidence in a stolen vehicle investigation versus a murder investigation. Hence the need to go back and take a better look at the truck.

Another question for Woodland - were you in the courtroom for the trial? If so, it would make sense to me that perhaps you have been privy to details the rest of us have not.

Thanks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk