Canada - Lucas Fowler, Chynna Deese, and Leonard Dyck, all murdered, Alaska Hwy, BC, Jul 2019 #18

[sandbar]

Why would anyone call for oversight before we've even seen the evidence?

And further to your point, it's part of LE procedure, especially in a high profile case, to do a procedural debrief after an investigation is complete. There will be ample opportunity to criticize, condone, compliment etc.

 

[FactFinder3000]

(dbm - mispost)

 

[Jen-Knee]

Perhaps but who knew they were anywhere near Laird the night of the 14th? Had they fled in the truck and camper and texted their family from time to time that all was well, it may have been weeks or months if ever when they were identified as suspects because they wouldn’t have been deemed missing persons. In northern provinces their truck and camper wasn’t quite that distinctive as it’s a common mode of transportation for tourists in the summer. It was the burning of it that immediately brought attention onto them.

I’m hoping forensics will have determined if the van was operative or not and if any fingerprints or DNA put one of them in the driver’s seat.

Seeing as they had just murdered two people, I doubt they were considering any of that at the time. They weren't criminal masterminds, after all.

 

[sandbar]

Not odd at all and many larger cities have RCMP as their police force as well. It's the default police force unless a given municipality wants to form their own.

I hear that. I was referring to how mental health issues might be dealt differently by local or national police forces.

 

[ldlager]

The RCMP has the authority to gather evidence and submit it to the appropriate labs for independent, arms length interpretation, according to strict protocols designed to protect the integrity of the evidence. The RCMP is the top policing agency in the country.

Dbm

 

[ldlager]

And further to your point, it's part of LE procedure, especially in a high profile case, to do a procedural debrief after an investigation is complete. There will be ample opportunity to criticize, condone, compliment etc.

Even after the (some)evidence is potentially presented or announced, wouldn’t it be prudent in a free and democratic society to have a mechanism in place that would enable an independent party to review it, to review other findings that were not presented or revealed, and to assess whether the evidence in its totality supports the conclusions of of the RCMP? Just asking.

Would this “debrief” involve anyone outside the RCMP?

 

[Jan424]

Well, we don't know much about Kam, is the problem, so there isn't as much to discuss. I wish we did, and I hope eventually more information will come out. But right now, as far as we know, there weren't really any obvious red flags for him, and we also have very limited information on his history. My suspicion is, though, that these two weren't so different, and probably had very similar issues (with one of them being more open about it than the other), and that's part of why they were so close.

I have always thought Kam and Bryer were very much alike in whatever made them tick and end up where they are. Given they apparently have been thick as thieves since childhood, I’d think if Bryer’s behaviors turned Kam off in any way, they would have drifted apart like many young friends eventually do. But since their bond seemed impenetrable all these years, it stands to reason they shared the same outlook on life... the good, the bad, and the ugly. And let’s not forget that, while we have only heard decent opinions about Kam’s personality, we know nothing about the dynamics of his family life. Maybe things weren’t so rosy there. I know some people here think the torching of the truck and camper were akin to flipping his parents (or one of them) the bird. We just have so little fat to chew with regards to Kam. JMO

 

[Trooper]

Even after the (some)evidence is potentially presented or announced, wouldn’t it be prudent in a free and democratic society to have a mechanism in place that would enable an independent party to review it, to review other findings that were not presented or revealed, and to assess whether the evidence in its totality supports the conclusions of of the RCMP? Just asking.

Would this “debrief” involve anyone outside the RCMP?

There is ample provision in the Westminster system, of which Canada is a part , to object and dissent from any conclusions reached, and this would be done thru the mechanism of civil law. That is, a member of , say, the McLeod family took umbrage at the final conclusions, they have the option to go thru the courts to have that rectified, or /and re visited.

Another way, a member of Parliament could instigate a Parliamentary review, based on solid ground for dissent, ..

Or, even a Royal Commission could be called for, where by Uncle Tom Cobbley and all are hauled into Parliament before a committee and grilled over hot coals by senators and Members of Parliament , etc.

It isn't a dead end, the RCMP report, assuming the Westminster apparatus is operative, there are avenues of objection and re hearing.

 

[ldlager]

There is ample provision in the Westminster system, of which Canada is a part , to object and dissent from any conclusions reached, and this would be done thru the mechanism of civil law. That is, a member of , say, the McLeod family took umbrage at the final conclusions, they have the option to go thru the courts to have that rectified, or /and re visited.

Another way, a member of Parliament could instigate a Parliamentary review, based on solid ground for dissent, ..

Or, even a Royal Commission could be called for, where by Uncle Tom Cobbley and all are hauled into Parliament before a committee and grilled over hot coals by senators and Members of Parliament , etc.

It isn't a dead end, the RCMP report, assuming the Westminster apparatus is operative, there are avenues of objection and re hearing.

Thank you for that information, that is helpful

 

[sandbar]

Even after the (some)evidence is potentially presented or announced, wouldn’t it be prudent in a free and democratic society to have a mechanism in place that would enable an independent party to review it, to review other findings that were not presented or revealed, and to assess whether the evidence in its totality supports the conclusions of of the RCMP? Just asking.

Would this “debrief” involve anyone outside the RCMP?

Yes.

I don't know.

Journalists play a huge part in democracy, and reporters, bloggers, podcasters, etc, will have their own questions and sources of information.

In the grander scheme of things, this case is young; 45 days since C&L were found, 21 days since K&B were found.

 

[MistyWaters]

Seeing as they had just murdered two people, I doubt they were considering any of that at the time. They weren't criminal masterminds, after all.

No they certainly weren’t criminal masterminds. But something about the van parked on the side of the road sparked their interest and instead of driving by, they pulled over and stopped for a reason.

If the truck/camper and the RAV4 was found burning due to the same cause (ie intentionally torched), was the motive for murdering both L&C and LD the same as well? I surely don’t know the answer, just speculating on the possible repetition aspect of this case.

 

[NJSleuth91]

I have always thought Kam and Bryer were very much alike in whatever made them tick and end up where they are. Given they apparently have been thick as thieves since childhood, I’d think if Bryer’s behaviors turned Kam off in any way, they would have drifted apart like many young friends eventually do. But since their bond seemed impenetrable all these years, it stands to reason they shared the same outlook on life... the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Agreed. There was a reason that out of all the people he knew, he chose to be BFFs with the weird, disturbed kid from the dysfunctional family who everyone else rejected, and seemed to be totally unbothered by Bryer's increasingly weird behavior. And not only that, but they had an unhealthily close and emotionally co-dependent friendship. Usually when two people are that co-dependent, it's because they think nobody else truly understands or is there for them. Obviously they could relate to each other on many things.

And let’s not forget that, while we have only heard decent opinions about Kam’s personality, we know nothing about the dynamics of his family life. Maybe things weren’t so rosy there. I know some people here think the torching of the truck and camper were akin to flipping his parents (or one of them) the bird. We just have so little fat to chew with regards to Kam. JMO

The research on this subject indicates that, statistically speaking, it's most likely that something happened. We don't know what, and maybe it wasn't even caused by his family, but statistically speaking, that's usually how it goes in cases like this.

I definitely don't think he was some kind of sociopathic mastermind though. Nobody's mask is that good. He looks genuinely friendly in all the photos of him. People specifically remembered him as being really kind and considerate and nobody reported any red flags. And especially, nobody's mask is that good when it came to these two guys, who overall came across like they had no idea what they were doing at any step of the way in this crime spree.

My guess is that Kam actually had the opposite problem and was an emotionally over-sensitive person, and he got to a point where his emotions got the best of him, for whatever reason. People don't think that's a thing, but it definitely is. I've seen it happen with people I know. I think whatever it was that made Bryer snap, made Kam snap too. Hopefully we can find out what that was.

I don't know if burning the truck and camper was meant to send a message to his parents. I'm more inclined to think it was to destroy forensic evidence, and/or make investigators think the killers got them too. It's possible he didn't want to do it, but saw no other choice. And I'm sure at that point they knew there was no going back to their old lives anyway, so what's a vehicle in the grand scheme of things?

 

[Trooper]

To be fair, I think that some posters here may believe that the duo murdered my dyke but theyquestion whether they murdered the other 2 victims.
That is to say, they weren’t innocent as the driven snow as you state, and they weren’t being hunted for nothing, but they may be wrongly accused of or suspected of killing 2 other people.

It is , like any murder, hard to fathom. One doesn't want to face it that two young baby-faced blokes, charming and helpful, except for a few odd behavioral issues, a bit of harmless fun that went too far, the usual japes and pranks of young blokes anywhere , suddenly turned into savage and relentless killers.

It is horrible, murder is horrible, and young offenders, with such capacity to kill in such a savage , callous, executionary manner, no mercy shown, is by it's very nature, unfathomable.

But it does happen. These two and not the first, wont be the last, and at least were stopped at three murders, before it really escalated.

Avoiding the reality by creating a phantom , Merlin -like apparition that haunts the highways of Manitoba, like a sort of Canadian Big Foot, appearing and disappearing at whim, is hardly conducive to rational exchange of views.

It's not as if there is another realistic suspect, even with the most tenuous link to the murders has been produced.

 

[MistyWaters]

Even after the (some)evidence is potentially presented or announced, wouldn’t it be prudent in a free and democratic society to have a mechanism in place that would enable an independent party to review it, to review other findings that were not presented or revealed, and to assess whether the evidence in its totality supports the conclusions of of the RCMP? Just asking.

Would this “debrief” involve anyone outside the RCMP?

During one of the recent press conferences it was stated one reason for the RCMPs ongoing investigation is to ensure there’s no other suspects at large and nobody was complicit with the two accused in any way, including their flight to Manitoba. In order for the police to “prove” no living person can be prosecuted, how else can they assure the public the file is closed other than telling us why all the evidence points toward the two deceased individuals who acted entirely on their own?

Would you have an independent party review every police investigation to ensure everything is on the up and up in every homicide case where no charges have been filed because no living suspect has yet been identified? Because I see that to be quite the same.

 

[LoisLane]

May not be related but Sarah Leamon (AS’s lawyer) tweeted to watch her on CTV tonight. Interesting comment followed.
Sarah Leamon on Twitter

 

[ldlager]

It is , like any murder, hard to fathom. One doesn't want to face it that two young baby-faced blokes, charming and helpful, except for a few odd behavioral issues, a bit of harmless fun that went too far, the usual japes and pranks of young blokes anywhere , suddenly turned into savage and relentless killers.

It is horrible, murder is horrible, and young offenders, with such capacity to kill in such a savage , callous, executionary manner, no mercy shown, is by it's very nature, unfathomable.

But it does happen. These two and not the first, wont be the last, and at least were stopped at three murders, before it really escalated.

Avoiding the reality by creating a phantom , Merlin -like apparition that haunts the highways of Manitoba, like a sort of Canadian Big Foot, appearing and disappearing at whim, is hardly conducive to rational exchange of views.

It's not as if there is another realistic suspect, even with the most tenuous link to the murders has been produced.

Based on the evidence that has been revealed to date regarding the double murder, I am as likely to have committed these murders as the they are.
Maybe it would be prudent for us to hold off making intractable conclusions until we learn what evidence the RCMP has, or doesn’t have.

 

[scrappinkat]

May not be related but Sarah Leamon (AS’s lawyer) tweeted to watch her on CTV tonight. Interesting comment followed.
Sarah Leamon on Twitter

Thanks for the heads up. Now to find the right news channel lol

 

[LoisLane]

Thanks for the heads up. Now to find the right news channel lol

It’s 6:30 in BC so it may have aired already or soon to come.

Here is the link for CTV Vancouver.. the 6:00 news for today should link tomorrow if we missed it. I’m not sure what the channel is.
CTV News Vancouver | Watch latest news

 

[ldlager]

During one of the recent press conferences it was stated one reason for the RCMPs ongoing investigation is to ensure there’s no other suspects at large and nobody was complicit with the two accused in any way, including their flight to Manitoba. In order for the police to “prove” no living person can be prosecuted, how else can they assure the public the file is closed other than telling us why all the evidence points toward the two deceased individuals who acted entirely on their own?

Would you have an independent party review every police investigation to ensure everything is on the up and up in every homicide case where no charges have been filed because no living suspect has yet been identified? Because I see that to be quite the same.

Thanks, I don’t view it as the same. An unsolved homicide remains open for LE to continue investigating, and to hopefully solve. If no suspect is charged, why would there be a public interest in having the evidence reviewed by an independent party? I don’t see that. When a suspect is charged, a trial ensues, and the evidence is presented and evaluated in court.
In this case, LE may conclude they killed 3 people, but no presentation of the evidence or an assessment thereof evidently needs to be made. That’s my only point.

 

[LoisLane]

CTV podcast dated August 16th.
The Fugitives: A Manhunt Drawing International Attention from BTS with CTV News Vancouver