Found Safe Canada - O’Driscoll-Zak sisters, 2 & 5, abduction by aunt & grandmother, Cochrane, 12 Mar 2021

[MistyWaters]

That's an odd comment coming from the mother's lawyer, Diann Castle. If the lawyer actually believes that the children are not safe, why has she not encouraged her client, the mother, to go public and plea for the safe return of the children that she last saw with her mother and sister?

Always a good idea to see how people feel about Diann Castle representing them during custody and divorce:
I found 33 reviews for Diann Castle on LawyerRatingz.com

'Our hearts are beyond broken': RCMP have yet to locate two Cochrane sisters three weeks after disappearance | Calgary Herald

It seems to me the lawyers words were carefully crafted. She mentions nothing about JOZ’s concern over a suddenly missing mother and sister.

“She’s a wreck,” said Castle. “These children are all that she lived for, worked for, everything. Can you imagine not seeing your kids for three weeks?”......

 

[Ontario Mom]

I'm curious why the mother's lawyer, Diann Castle, suddenly tossed out that perhaps the grandmother, aunt and children's lives may be in grave danger. It's been three weeks. Why so long to react?

Did the lawyer and the mother just realize, three weeks later, that when two people abduct two children, there's no guarantee that the children are alive and well - so perhaps a public plea from the mother for proof of life might be in order? Perhaps blame RCMP for not presuming the worst in a look over there moment?

Blaming RCMP for believing that the children are alive and well - what is that about? If the lawyer truly believed that the children were at risk, wouldn't the mother have said something under advice of lawyer sooner?

It's strikes me that the lawyer is playing a game of "what if the grandmother and aunt didn't abduct the children and they're lying dead in a ditch, why aren't RCMP doing anything!" Meanwhile, they are perhaps in Toronto, fully masked and unrecognizable, hypothetically. Meanwhile, the abducted family are not lying dead in a ditch, but appear to have relocated.

'Our hearts are beyond broken': RCMP have yet to locate two Cochrane sisters three weeks after disappearance | Calgary Herald

RCMP believe auntie and grandma are receiving assistance to stay hidden (and IMO no LE agency worth their salt would state something like that publicly if they didn't have evidence to lead them to believe it), yet the co-counsel for mom is talking about concerns for their safety and their bodies showing up somewhere?

Essentially accusing the RCMP of not pursuing any other "alternative".

I'm calling Lawyer Baloney 101.

I think mom knows exactly where they are, and I think once they're all located, she'll be charged as well as her mother and her sister.

As they should be, for defying a court order and kidnapping those children.

jmo

 

[Ontario Mom]

It seems to me the lawyers words were carefully crafted. She mentions nothing about JOZ’s concern over a suddenly missing mother and sister.

“She’s a wreck,” said Castle. “These children are all that she lived for, worked for, everything. Can you imagine not seeing your kids for three weeks?”......

Logic says, if mom had no part in this, she'd be LIVID (or, a "wreck", as it were), and demanding her mom and sister bring the kids back immediately. Or, she'd be turning over anything she knows, to the RCMP so that they can locate them.

And yet... crickets from mom.
That says more to me than whatever spin these lawyers are shooting for.

jmo

 

[MistyWaters]

RCMP believe auntie and grandma are receiving assistance to stay hidden (and IMO no LE agency worth their salt would state something like that publicly if they didn't have evidence to lead them to believe it), yet the co-counsel for mom is talking about concerns for their safety and their bodies showing up somewhere?

Essentially accusing the RCMP of not pursuing any other "alternative".

I'm calling Lawyer Baloney 101.

I think mom knows exactly where they are, and I think once they're all located, she'll be charged as well as her mother and her sister.

As they should be, for defying a court order and kidnapping those children.

jmo

I agree, I don’t think the RCMP would state they believe the grandmother and aunt are receiving assistance from family members if they didn’t have reason.

Her attorneys poor attempt at making the mother appear an innocent victim of circumstance with no mention of outrage at her mother and sister for abducting her children isn’t very convincing. It gives the impression the bunch of them are all conniving and deceptive IMO.

 

[Inthedetails]

I agree, I don’t think the RCMP would state they believe the grandmother and aunt are receiving assistance from family members if they didn’t have reason.

Her attorneys poor attempt at making the mother appear an innocent victim of circumstance with no mention of outrage at her mother and sister for abducting her children isn’t very convincing. It gives the impression the bunch of them are all conniving and deceptive IMO.

This is a stretch and likely way too cynical, but I wonder if they set up "clues" that the foursome are deceased rather than in hiding.

Brainstorming, opinion, speculation.

 

[MistyWaters]

This is a stretch and likely way too cynical, but I wonder if they set up "clues" that the foursome are deceased rather than in hiding.

Brainstorming, opinion, speculation.

Nothing would surprise me at this point. I’d think there has to be some sort of mental health issues involving serious distortion of reality from the onset for them to fail to consider that child abduction always has consequences.

They’ve really got themselves in a predicament so the question would be, how much longer before they do the right thing and give themselves up? It surely would be better to voluntarily surrender than force the police to close down on them. Once LE have determined their location IMO they’d act quickly out of concern for wellbeing of the children. If these two women have any regard of the children whatsoever I’d think they’d want to minimize any additional trauma directly caused by their own actions...or non-actions.

 

[otto]

RCMP believe auntie and grandma are receiving assistance to stay hidden (and IMO no LE agency worth their salt would state something like that publicly if they didn't have evidence to lead them to believe it), yet the co-counsel for mom is talking about concerns for their safety and their bodies showing up somewhere?

Essentially accusing the RCMP of not pursuing any other "alternative".

I'm calling Lawyer Baloney 101.

I think mom knows exactly where they are, and I think once they're all located, she'll be charged as well as her mother and her sister.

As they should be, for defying a court order and kidnapping those children.

jmo

The mother's Lawyer Baloney is a bit like playing the community for a fool. The mother's family abducted the children three weeks ago, and has sat quiet since. RCMP are doing everything possible to locate the children.

Out of the blue, the mother's lawyers toss out a criticism that RCMP are not doing enough to locate the abductors and children because, in their opinion, the investigation would be different if police viewed the abductors as victims. Would it? I doubt it. I doubt the lawyers believe that viewing all four as victims would change the nature of the investigation. It strikes me as a baseless criticism of RCMP that leaves one wondering why the mother's lawyers are critical of the people who are doing their best to locate the missing children and abductors?

I'm curious whether the lawyers have told the mother that her messy divorce is nothing special, that many couples have taken this exact route and it never ends well for the children. The lawyer, with her 32 years experience, is familiar with every destructive tactic that is used in this divorce, from constructive delays to tossing out every allegation that comes to mind and parental alienation. It's almost as though the lawyers have taken a script from the 1980s custody dispute handbook and handed it to the mother.

Many professionals believe that false accusations of sexual abuse are also increasing. Although there is a disagreement as to the frequency and nature of false claims, many believe that false accusations have become a serious problem in vindictive, angry custody and visitation battles. Consequently, false accusations in divorce have received extensive media and professional attention (see for example, Ash, 1985; Benedek & Schetky, 1985a, 1985b; Bishop & Johnson, 1987a, 1987b; Blush & Ross, 1987 & 1990; Brant & Sink, 1984; Bresee, Stearns, Bess, & Packer, 1986; Dwyer, 1986; Ekman, 1989; Everstine & Everstine, 1989; Ferguson, 1988; Gardner, unpublished, 1987a; Goldzband & Renshaw, unpublished; Gordon, 1985; Green, 1986; Green, & Schetky, 1988; Guyer & Ash, 1986; Hindmarch,1990; Jones & Seig, 1988; Levine, 1986; Levy, 1989; MacFarlane, 1986; Murphy, 1987; Ross & Blush, 1990; Schaefer & Guyer, 1988; Schuman, 1986; Sheridan, 1990; Sink, 1988b; Spiegel, 1986; Thoennes & Pearson, 1988a, 1988b; Thoennes & Tjaden, 1990; Underwager & Wakefield, 1990; Wakefield & Underwager, 1988, 1989, 1990; Yates & Musty, 1988).​

1991
IPT - Sexual Abuse Allegations in Divorce and Custody Disputes

 

[fcavanaugh]

If we are suspecting the Mother’s possible knowledge/involvement, stating the obvious, RCMP has. With that said, is it safe to assume the RCMP have surveillance on JOZ hoping she leads them to the children, or?

I’d think it would be pretty hard for a Mother to not see her children, especially after 3 weeks?!
So if JOZ is involved, is it a matter of how long she can hold out without seeing the children? My apologies if this has already been brought up, I admittedly don’t know much about how the RCMP operate, and wondering if it’s legal to surveil someone under these circumstances ie., the Mother isn’t the actual abduction suspect but suspected of having knowledge/possible involvement.
I hope that makes sense.

IMHOO

 

[Satchie]

If we are suspecting the Mother’s possible knowledge/involvement, RCMP most definitely has considered the possibility, so is it safe to assume the RCMP have surveillance on JOZ, or? I’d think it would be pretty hard for a Mother to not see her children, especially after 3 weeks?
So if JOZ is involved, is it a matter of how long she can hold out without seeing the children? My apologies if this has already been brought up, I admittedly don’t know much about how the RCMP operate, but is it legal to surveil someone under these circumstances where the Mother isn’t the actual abduction suspect but suspected of having knowledge/possible involvement.
I hope that makes sense.

IMHOO

IMO the first thing police do when looking for someone is start montoring their banking transactions: it's the simplest, they get an alert if there's any credit card or bank account transactions, like an ATM. These tell them where the person is.

Since they haven't been found, IMO that means there's been no activity in the missing people's bank accounts.

Since LE have warned about providing support, possibly that means they've started monitoring close family bank accounts. The missing may be using someone else's bank account or CC, or someone may be giving/sending them money directly.

In any case someone has to be paying for 4 people's meals, gas, etc, and likely bigger expenses like rent, and that's going to show up as larger than usual cash withdrawls, or something.

JMO

 

[Lexiintoronto]

I'm curious why the mother's lawyer, Diann Castle, suddenly tossed out that perhaps the grandmother, aunt and children's lives may be in grave danger. It's been three weeks. Why so long to react?

Did the lawyer and the mother just realize, three weeks later, that when two people abduct two children, there's no guarantee that the children are alive and well - so perhaps a public plea from the mother for proof of life might be in order? Perhaps blame RCMP for not presuming the worst in a look over there moment?

Blaming RCMP for believing that the children are alive and well - what is that about? If the lawyer truly believed that the children were at risk, wouldn't the mother have said something under advice of lawyer sooner?

It's strikes me that the lawyer is playing a game of "what if the grandmother and aunt didn't abduct the children and they're lying dead in a ditch, why aren't RCMP doing anything!" Meanwhile, they are perhaps in Toronto, fully masked and unrecognizable, hypothetically. Meanwhile, the abducted family are not lying dead in a ditch, but appear to have relocated.

'Our hearts are beyond broken': RCMP have yet to locate two Cochrane sisters three weeks after disappearance | Calgary Herald

The mother is likely under close surveillance and is stressed by having three weeks of it. This is a self-serving announcement, IMO. I think all DC wants is for the RCMP to ease off the mother and focus elsewhere. The mother could have been making daily appeals for the safe return of the four: she didn’t.

ETA: We had to pressure the RCMP to put out an alert in the last few months. They responded and sent out the alert and the situation ended quickly (an active shooter who crossed over the border to NS.) Alerts work.

 

[Lexiintoronto]

If we are suspecting the Mother’s possible knowledge/involvement, stating the obvious, RCMP has. With that said, is it safe to assume the RCMP have surveillance on JOZ hoping she leads them to the children, or?

I’d think it would be pretty hard for a Mother to not see her children, especially after 3 weeks?!
So if JOZ is involved, is it a matter of how long she can hold out without seeing the children? My apologies if this has already been brought up, I admittedly don’t know much about how the RCMP operate, and wondering if it’s legal to surveil someone under these circumstances ie., the Mother isn’t the actual abduction suspect but suspected of having knowledge/possible involvement.
I hope that makes sense.

IMHOO

I hadn’t read your post before posting a similar thought. I think with four people missing, including two young children, it’s reasonable to expect phone taps, surveillance, all covert means available on everyone involved.

 

[MistyWaters]

If we are suspecting the Mother’s possible knowledge/involvement, stating the obvious, RCMP has. With that said, is it safe to assume the RCMP have surveillance on JOZ hoping she leads them to the children, or?

I’d think it would be pretty hard for a Mother to not see her children, especially after 3 weeks?!
So if JOZ is involved, is it a matter of how long she can hold out without seeing the children? My apologies if this has already been brought up, I admittedly don’t know much about how the RCMP operate, and wondering if it’s legal to surveil someone under these circumstances ie., the Mother isn’t the actual abduction suspect but suspected of having knowledge/possible involvement.
I hope that makes sense.

IMHOO

In my opinion the onus is on the RCMP to investigate anybody they suspect of committing a criminal offence, in this case anyone who contributes to an abduction. They were even gracious enough to provide a warning. I don’t know if a court order is legally required or not for surveillance or the tracking of online activity but if the mother isn’t fully cooperating with the RCMP by aiding in the search to find the four, then the RCMP should have no difficulty obtaining one. JMO

BBM
UPDATE: Cochrane RCMP continue search for two missing girls and adults - CochraneToday.ca
"The RCMP want to send a clear message to those that are assisting, that even if they believe they are acting in their best interests of the children, any assistance provided that contributes to the abduction is a criminal offence and the RCMP will investigate those involved and charges may be laid. Any assistance being provided is only exasperating the situation," reads the release. "Police have not stopped investigating and won’t stop until they locate the children."...”

 

[LadyL]

I have stayed away from posting on here because I actually briefly went on a handful of dates with CZ in fall of 2019. Very strange to see all of this online. I know all of it is hearsay, but he would often tell me of what was going on. She was being very difficult and even then made it very difficult for him to see them. He made many efforts and spent all of his time talking about or trying to see those kids.

That being said, he appears to be slightly different from when I briefly dated him. He had gone through some sort of change spiritually and didn't align with JDZ anymore. He lost 50 pounds in a matter of months due to his veganism and he was starting into buddism.

I'm active on here but I know how it looks, having someone come online and say they knew so and so...

Also, mods if this is wrong to write, please delete my apologies.

But to be honest, he worked more than his communications job. He did two other part time jobs, and while I don't know much about how these things go, but I remember all those other jobs were to provide for his children. He had made comments even then about how difficult his ex wife was being, making it difficult. There were moments where he was only allowed to see them after dinner on weekdays or something. So he would make the long drive, to see them (he lived in downtown Calgary at the time) and see me after putting them to bed. He handled it well at the time, but I don't think at the time he saw that it could be like this down the road..

I do think he's a bit odd, and I recall him mentioning how religious his ex was and she didn't get his spiritual shift. But who's to say that the spiritual shift isn't indicative of something more....?

what is JDZ??

 

[abr]

That's an odd comment coming from the mother's lawyer, Diann Castle. If the lawyer actually believes that the children are not safe, why has she not encouraged her client, the mother, to go public and plea for the safe return of the children that she last saw with her mother and sister?

Always a good idea to see how people feel about Diann Castle representing them during custody and divorce:
I found 33 reviews for Diann Castle on LawyerRatingz.com

'Our hearts are beyond broken': RCMP have yet to locate two Cochrane sisters three weeks after disappearance | Calgary Herald

Wow! She has terrible reviews and not just one or two.

 

[otto]

Wow! She has terrible reviews and not just one or two.

Most concerns relate to questionable ethics. It's not surprising to find a lawyer like this in the middle of a disastrous custody dispute. We have escalation of conflict, mudslinging, a complete disrespect for the courts, and a suggestion that RCMP are not doing their jobs.

This is such a strange comment - the lawyer will be upset with the RCMP if bodies show up somewhere else? Has she forgotten that her client's mother and sister abducted the children? Does she think the mother's family has left the children's bodies "somewhere else?"

"“(It appears) the RCMP has a reason to believe they’re safe — and I hope they do, because if they don’t and their bodies show up somewhere else I would be very upset,” said Castle."
​

'Our hearts are beyond broken': RCMP have yet to locate two Cochrane sisters three weeks after disappearance

 

[otto]

what is JDZ??

Probably Jacqueline O'Driscoll Zak, the mother of the abducted children.

 

[MistyWaters]

Most concerns relate to questionable ethics. It's not surprising to find a lawyer like this in the middle of a disastrous custody dispute. We have escalation of conflict, mudslinging, a complete disrespect for the courts, and a suggestion that RCMP are not doing their jobs.

This is such a strange comment - the lawyer will be upset with the RCMP if bodies show up somewhere else? Has she forgotten that her client's mother and sister abducted the children? Does she think the mother's family has left the children's bodies "somewhere else?"

"“(It appears) the RCMP has a reason to believe they’re safe — and I hope they do, because if they don’t and their bodies show up somewhere else I would be very upset,” said Castle."
​

'Our hearts are beyond broken': RCMP have yet to locate two Cochrane sisters three weeks after disappearance

It is a strange comment, and where’s “somewhere else” when the location of the missing children is already somewhere unknown. And initially she claims her client is “a wreck”, then she mentions the possibility of finding bodies to the media.

 

[otto]

It is a strange comment, and where’s “somewhere else” when the location of the missing children is already somewhere unknown. And initially she claims her client is “a wreck”, then she mentions the possibility of finding bodies to the media.

"Somewhere else" stands out because it usually refers to here, or somewhere else. It leaves me thinking that Diann Castle has some idea about where the children are hidden, knows that it is not here, so she said "somewhere else" without thinking.

Bottom line, the lawyer is bluffing. She's trying to misdirect RCMP by suggesting that they should be looking for bad guys who abducted the grandmother, aunt and children, that bodies may be lying around "somewhere else" and she will be "upset."

 

[Lexiintoronto]

Most concerns relate to questionable ethics. It's not surprising to find a lawyer like this in the middle of a disastrous custody dispute. We have escalation of conflict, mudslinging, a complete disrespect for the courts, and a suggestion that RCMP are not doing their jobs.

This is such a strange comment - the lawyer will be upset with the RCMP if bodies show up somewhere else? Has she forgotten that her client's mother and sister abducted the children? Does she think the mother's family has left the children's bodies "somewhere else?"

"“(It appears) the RCMP has a reason to believe they’re safe — and I hope they do, because if they don’t and their bodies show up somewhere else I would be very upset,” said Castle."
​

'Our hearts are beyond broken': RCMP have yet to locate two Cochrane sisters three weeks after disappearance

From your link (mother’s lawyer Diann Castle):

““She’s a wreck,” said Castle. “These children are all that she lived for, worked for, everything. Can you imagine not seeing your kids for three weeks?”

Slightly worried she’s using the past tense.

 

[otto]

From your link (mother’s lawyer Diann Castle):

““She’s a wreck,” said Castle. “These children are all that she lived for, worked for, everything. Can you imagine not seeing your kids for three weeks?”

Slightly worried she’s using the past tense.

What stood out for me in that comment is that children have two parents, and her client deprived the children of access to one of those parents for months. Why would anyone feel sorry for her client because she is deprived of the children for 3 weeks - especially given that her family abducted the children.

The children have been treated as pawns by the mother since the father filed for divorce. The children's privacy has been destroyed by her family. If the mother "lived for, worked for" the children, she would have more respect for those children.

It's always been a possibility that the abductors and children are victims. In my humble opinion, the mother would be the first suspect.