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

Defence lawyer telling media there will be an appeal based on what they believe are errors in the judgment.

(pretty standard stuff)
 
Brett McCann"
"Today's verdict is a huge relief to our family. This has truly been a marathon ..."

Brett thanks, among others, witnesses who came forward and spoke the truth.

Not optimistic that the convicted person will ever talk. (*Would not use TV's name*)

Lyle and Marie were kindred spirits.
 
Brett closes with "I'm sorry Mom and Dad I can do no more. I hope that someday, somehow you will be found ... our memory of you will last forever" :(
 
Guilty verdict without a body based on circumstantial evidence. :clap::clap::clap:

Imo, interpretation of circumstantial evidence. The appeal will be interesting - I really don't think he did it.
 
Imo, interpretation of circumstantial evidence. The appeal will be interesting - I really don't think he did it.

The judge basically said (paraphrased) the Crown's theory was a reasonable interpretation of the circumstantial evidence, but that the theory presented by the defence was not plausible.

What other scenario would you propose that constitutes a reasonable inference or explanation of the circumstantial evidence?
 
Imo, interpretation of circumstantial evidence. The appeal will be interesting - I really don't think he did it.

Woodland, I am curious, do you have an alternate theory to share?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
That "Thursday afternoon" thing must be Alberta time ;)

Seriously, probably just taking longer because both sides are providing input into the sentencing.
 
Like most others, I did initially assume Vader was guilty as the RCMP claimed. A closer look at the evidence after staying the charges had me thinking everything seems so staged - and I don't mean by LE. I do have doubts on finding Vaders' DNA on LM's hat brim though - which did not show up during the first test.

I also think that the RCMP would not back down after publicly implicating him about 2 weeks after the McCann's went missing - meaning they wanted to win at all costs. It's likely inappropriate for me to say at this point who I think is more likely to be responsible - but I do agree money was the motive - which money is the question imo. The money on their person that day or what they had in total?

Not understanding this statement by the judge today -

The judge ruled that the Crown established a timeline for the day that Vader happened upon the McCanns in a campground west of Edmonton.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...-2nd-degree-murder-in-mccann-deaths-1.3762460

During the trial, and it's posted here, the Crown said their theory is that Vader encountered and overpowered them on the side of the TransCanada Highway. Not getting the change in location - the McCann's were headed for BC that night, not a rinky dink campground 2 hours from home.

So yes, I have doubts on the intent of many involved.
 
I think this is the reason we haven't heard anything on sentencing this afternoon:

Legal experts suggest judge made serious error in Vader verdict

[...]

CTV News Legal Analyst Edward Prutschi said that it appears Justice Dennis Thomas relied on Section 230 of the Criminal Code, which was declared unconstitutional in 1990 case R. v. Martineau.

Prutschi told CTV News Channel that Section 230 stated that if a person died during a robbery, “which is what the accusation was here,” then “automatically you’re guilty of murder.”

According to Prutschi, since that section was struck down in 1990, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had “the foresight” to know they were going to cause someone’s death in order to prove murder.

[...]

Let's see how/if the judge can remedy this before sentencing.

Surely it is "subjective foresight of death" when you take a gun, point it at someone, and kill them. How would that reasonably get reduced to manslaughter?
 
Wow - this judge used a section of the Criminal Code that was struck down in 1990? 1990? He didn't know that? This reminds of the Canadian judge currently under review by his peers for asking a victim of SA why she just didn't keep her knees together. That judge didn't know he can't ask her that. WTH is going on in our courts these days?

Brings into question the interpretation of what was put forward as evidence imo.
 
I think this is the reason we haven't heard anything on sentencing this afternoon:

Legal experts suggest judge made serious error in Vader verdict



Let's see how/if the judge can remedy this before sentencing.

Surely it is "subjective foresight of death" when you take a gun, point it at someone, and kill them. How would that reasonably get reduced to manslaughter?
I'm having an absolute meltdown ffs.

This conviction is going to be overturned.

Wth
 
All I can think of us the poor McCann Family. OMG

This is not right. How much can one family bear? I honestly feel sick to my stomach.
 
Section 230 was the only section of the Criminal Code this judge could find applicable to this case? Says a lot to me.
 
After all this, it will be very disappointing if the judge erred and this has all been for nothing.
The only good thing, for me, is the fact someone finally said "TV did it!" But that's a small victory.

I feel terrible for the Mc family. I would feel bad for TV, if it drags on to a new trial, but for the fact that I agree with the judge, he did it. And I see him as such a serial recidivist he will inevitably wind up in jail anyway.
IMHO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Fwiw, the judges error is not the most critical point imo - but it is a doozy. Collectively and individually the RCMP, Crown and the judge have never been unable to close the deal so to speak on Vader having committed this crime. Yet many continue to shout that he is guilty because the RCMP said he is. That is not how it works.

Vader is a serial recidivist - but Vader committing murder has never been proven. The justice system can only put someone behind bars for a crime that is proven - not supposed. And they can't take their sweet time about it either - that was determined to be abuse ages ago.

Beresh believes the extraordinary length of Vader's prosecution is an abuse of process under Section 11b of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The section states, "Any person charged with an offence has the right to be tried within a reasonable time."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...f-proceedings-in-mccann-murder-case-1.3764963

Vader will be guilty in the minds of many for the rest of his life - whether he did it or not. Do people honestly think 'this could never happen to me'? Ask Morin or Baltovich - neither had ever been arrested let alone convicted of any crime before landing behind bars for murder. Both then exonerated one way or another. Imo, the mob mentality is at work. Jmo.
 
from:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...-s-mistake-defence-will-file-appeal-1.3764305

Section 230 allows for a murder verdict if a wrongful death occurs during the commission of another crime, such as robbery. But that section was found unconstitutional in 1990 by the Supreme Court.

The revised definition of murder states the killings must be intended to be murder, which the Crown was unable to prove in the Vader case, the legal experts say.

Section 230 is what Justice Thomas relied upon, which is as follows:

from:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-52.html#h-77

Murder in commission of offences

230 Culpable homicide is murder where a person causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit high treason or treason or an offence mentioned in section 52 (sabotage), 75 (piratical acts), 76 (hijacking an aircraft), 144 or subsection 145(1) or sections 146 to 148 (escape or rescue from prison or lawful custody), section 270 (assaulting a peace officer), section 271 (sexual assault), 272 (sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm), 273 (aggravated sexual assault), 279 (kidnapping and forcible confinement), 279.1 (hostage taking), 343 (robbery), 348 (breaking and entering) or 433 or 434 (arson), whether or not the person means to cause death to any human being and whether or not he knows that death is likely to be caused to any human being, if

(a) he means to cause bodily harm for the purpose of

(i) facilitating the commission of the offence, or


(ii) facilitating his flight after committing or attempting to commit the offence,


and the death ensues from the bodily harm;


(b) he administers a stupefying or overpowering thing for a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), and the death ensues therefrom; or


(c) he wilfully stops, by any means, the breath of a human being for a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), and the death ensues therefrom.


(d) [Repealed, 1991, c. 4, s. 1]
<bbm>

I'm confused by the defence team's assertion that the revised definition states the killings must be intended when the CCC specifically states "whether or not the person means to cause death to any human being and whether or not he knows that death is likely to be caused to any human being" AND includes robbery as one of the qualifiers.

ETA: has the online version of the CCC not been updated since the 1990 revision???
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
176
Guests online
2,323
Total visitors
2,499

Forum statistics

Threads
589,975
Messages
17,928,583
Members
228,029
Latest member
MichaelKeell
Back
Top