Amber Alert for Calgary boy, 5, who was last seen with grandparents

[Durry]

It's interesting to see how Calgary's finest (police) paraded this dude in front of the news media after they charged him last night.

We must not lose sight of the fact that in this country you are still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
The Police do not decide on guilt or innocence by having him charged.

 

[Sal]

This is a prime example of where the death penalty would be a godsend. He either spits out where the bodies are or off to the gallows he goes.

regardless of what the family wants?...no, that's a terrible way to do it

Not if it works! -

how could it work?

Only if the perp prefers being alive to being dead! -

I don't understand how this is a good send? are doing this before the trial?

 

[Nuggler]

Apparently there was a dispute over a patent........plus whatever. Alleged perp has a record and known to police.
My opinion: the five year old was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Beyond sad.:-(

 

[captain morgan]

Apparently there was a dispute over a patent........plus whatever. Alleged perp has a record and known to police.

And a quickie corporate bankruptcy and string of lawsuits.

That don't justify nothing, but it never pays to make lots of enemies in life

My opinion: the five year old was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Beyond sad.:-(

No doubt.... If this person had a beef with one (both) of the adults, that's one thing, but to take a 5 y/o boy is off the chain... Could left him in the house and tore the phone cord from the wall or something.

When they catch buddy, hope they force him to reside in gen pop for his soon-to-be-short-a$$-life

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Speaking pragmatically, if he is smart and has a good lawyer, he should not offer up the bodies without a significant deal. 3 counts of 2nd degree for example. Otherwise, he will be giving the prosecution much more to use against him. Of course, he may wish to deal for less if the case against him is strong and conviction is likely.

Also, the state would have to prove pre-meditiation without any physical evidence.

 

[captain morgan]

Speaking pragmatically, if he is smart and has a good lawyer, he should not offer up the bodies without a significant deal. 3 counts of 2nd degree for example. Otherwise, he will be giving the prosecution much more to use against him. Of course, he may wish to deal for less if the case against him is strong and conviction is likely.

The cops had better have some compelling evidence in their back pocket.

Even with the bodies, they would have a real challenge, but without them or substantial evidence, it's a lot of speculative statements based on assumptions

 

[Locutus]

police work is smelling a little bernardoesque...what can I tell ya.

 

[Sal]

police work is smelling a little bernardoesque...what can I tell ya.

fuk...I hope not

but I hear ya

arrested TWICE...

we have every hope they are still alive

home closed and given back to family

buddy charged

over and out

 

[JLM]

Speaking pragmatically, if he is smart and has a good lawyer, he should not offer up the bodies without a significant deal. 3 counts of 2nd degree for example. Otherwise, he will be giving the prosecution much more to use against him. Of course, he may wish to deal for less if the case against him is strong and conviction is likely.

Also, the state would have to prove pre-meditiation without any physical evidence.

I'm inclined to think the opposite for this piece of sh*t. With the death penalty in effect he could be told if you are found guilty after the bodies have been "discovered", we'll do our damndest to get you off with a life sentence.

 

[coldstream]

It's interesting to see how Calgary's finest (police) paraded this dude in front of the news media after they charged him last night.

We must not lose sight of the fact that in this country you are still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
The Police do not decide on guilt or innocence by having him charged.

they got the 'perp walk' from the American example. It takes the focus of the public and media off the police and puts it onto the accused. It is standard practice now in hight profile cases. But its unlikely they would have used it unless they were sure of their case.

 

[JLM]

It's interesting to see how Calgary's finest (police) paraded this dude in front of the news media after they charged him last night.

We must not lose sight of the fact that in this country you are still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
The Police do not decide on guilt or innocence by having him charged.

It sounds good but it's actually utter bullsh*t. Everyone knows this guy is guilty. If what you are saying is true, why are "innocent" people spending up to two years or more in a remand centre? In this country a big part of being guilty is being poor.

 

[talloola]

ok, maybe i should know the answer here, but i don't.

if he has been charged with first and second degree murder, without bodies, isn't there only
only way they could do that? he had to tell them they are dead, or how else could they
lay that charge, unless pieces of their bodies were found around the house, jeesh, can't
believe i said that, but?

that isn't exactly pleading guilty, but it is the knowledge of their deaths, then he and his
lawyer can move forward with the 'big' manufactured story for the courts.
self defense, insane at the time, on and on, maybe he went in there and found them all
dead and decided to dispose of the bodies, maybe the 'real' murderer forced him to take
the bodies, he was just scared, he wasn't thinking straight,
anything that could cast some doubt for the jury.

if they have the kind of evidence it seems they have, he is guilty. this isn't 50 years ago, it
is today, with all of the technology to find forensic evidence, they don't have to just grab
someone for the sake of looking like they are doing their job, on sparce evidence, they know.



i don't care how much forensic evidence they have, they can't prove death without bodies, or
information from 'the' person who knows.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

I'm inclined to think the opposite for this piece of sh*t. With the death penalty in effect he could be told if you are found guilty after the bodies have been "discovered", we'll do our damndest to get you off with a life sentence.

It is up to procecution to prove case. I expect defendent and his lawyer to do nothing that is not in their best interest. I hope they have enough to commit otherwise they may let a killer free due to double jepardy.

ok, maybe i should know the answer here, but i don't.

if he has been charged with first and second degree murder, without bodies, isn't there only
only way they could do that? he had to tell them they are dead, or how else could they
lay that charge, unless pieces of their bodies were found around the house, jeesh, can't
believe i said that, but?

that isn't exactly pleading guilty, but it is the knowledge of their deaths, then he and his
lawyer can move forward with the 'big' manufactured story for the courts.
self defense, insane at the time, on and on, maybe he went in there and found them all
dead and decided to dispose of the bodies, maybe the 'real' murderer forced him to take
the bodies, he was just scared, he wasn't thinking straight,
anything that could cast some doubt for the jury.

if they have the kind of evidence it seems they have, he is guilty. this isn't 50 years ago, it
is today, with all of the technology to find forensic evidence, they don't have to just grab
someone for the sake of looking like they are doing their job, on sparce evidence, they know.



i don't care how much forensic evidence they have, they can't prove death without bodies, or
information from 'the' person who knows.

There was no doubt blood evidence at the scene. They may have intercepted communications of his. They must have evidence tieing him to that blood (perhaps his fingerprint). Without a body, it is much more difficult to convict. For them to lay charges I have to assume they think they have enough hard evidence or they blew their shot ... even if bodies are found later.

 

[talloola]

It is up to procecution to prove case. I expect defendent and his lawyer to do nothing that is not in their best interest. I hope they have enough to commit otherwise they may let a killer free due to double jepardy.



There was no doubt blood evidence at the scene. They may have intercepted communications of his. They must have evidence tieing him to that blood (perhaps his fingerprint). Without a body, it is much more difficult to convict. For them to lay charges I have to assume they think they have enough hard evidence or they blew their shot ... even if bodies are found later.

sure they have tied him to the crime thru forensic evidence, but that doesn't prove death, that proof
came from 'him' somehow, if it was thru communication, then they heard him admit their deaths to
someone else. or maybe he just wrote it down 'somewhere'.

i hope the police haven't made 'any' mistakes in their investigation, that could throw out this case,
if so, they better take a slow boat to china.

 

[Sal]

sure they have tied him to the crime thru forensic evidence, but that doesn't prove death, that proof
came from 'him' somehow, if it was thru communication, then they heard him admit their deaths to
someone else. or maybe he just wrote it down 'somewhere'.

i hope the police haven't made 'any' mistakes in their investigation, that could throw out this case,
if so, they better take a slow boat to china.

here's what they are saying in the article above regarding the bodies talloola:

Though such cases are unusual, the absence of victims' bodies does not preclude a murder charge in Canada. A prosecution can still build a solid case, retired Toronto homicide detective Dave Perry said.

"It's not really about not having a body; it's about how much evidence do they have without a body," he said.
"You don't need the body for a conviction, but every case you work on, of course you want to get everything possible in terms of evidence."

Perry noted that convicted killers Michael Rafferty and Terri-Lynne McClintic, currently serving life sentences for murdering eight-year-old Tori Stafford, were arrested and charged in May 2009 — two months before the Ontario girl's remains were found and confirmed as being hers.

It would also appear according to the article that the amount of blood at the scene was significant enough to indicate that person needed medical attention or they would die...

 

[JLM]

i don't care how much forensic evidence they have, they can't prove death without bodies, or
information from 'the' person who knows.

Oh, yes they can, Talloola. One scenario is where they have blood that (through D.N.A.) they can determine the owner and if they say had a gallon (or perhaps even less) of it they would know the owner is dead.

sure they have tied him to the crime thru forensic evidence, but that doesn't prove death, that proof
came from 'him' somehow, if it was thru communication, then they heard him admit their deaths to
someone else. or maybe he just wrote it down 'somewhere'.

i hope the police haven't made 'any' mistakes in their investigation, that could throw out this case,
if so, they better take a slow boat to china.

Not to worry, Talloola, let's just say the worse comes to the worse and he walks through some technicality but we know he's guilty. "Street justice" will take care of him in a better way than the courts ever would.

 

[talloola]

Oh, yes they can, Talloola. One scenario is where they have blood that (through D.N.A.) they can determine the owner and if they say had a gallon (or perhaps even less) of it they would know the owner is dead.


Not to worry, Talloola, let's just say the worse comes to the worse and he walks through some technicality but we know he's guilty. "Street justice" will take care of him in a better way than the courts ever would.

yes of course, if there was 'that' much blood of the same type, certainly they could know that the person
had died right there, can't imagine 3 people lying there and bleeding out, not impossible, just unlikely.

i wonder what the weapon was, guns, knives, both maybe.

 

[JLM]

yes of course, if there was 'that' much blood of the same type, certainly they could know that the person
had died right there, can't imagine 3 people lying there and bleeding out, not impossible, just unlikely.

i wonder what the weapon was, guns, knives, both maybe.

I would imagine the answers to many of the questions we are asking are already known to the authorities, but probably won't come out until trial. (I bet the trial won't happen for a year and a half to two years) It's criminal how these defense lawyers can manipulate these things! The taxpayers should be ready for a bill of 6 figures for this one. (much better if they just hanged them both) -

 

[QuebecCanadian]

Oh, yes they can, Talloola. One scenario is where they have blood that (through D.N.A.) they can determine the owner and if they say had a gallon (or perhaps even less) of it they would know the owner is dead.


Not to worry, Talloola, let's just say the worse comes to the worse and he walks through some technicality but we know he's guilty. "Street justice" will take care of him in a better way than the courts ever would.

Street justice....prison gen pop....


My brother is in prison for one of those crimes and he's in general population. Not a hair touched on his head from what my father tells me. Maybe he's not saying but it seems he's quite happy working in the kitchen and helping with the computers.


And street justice, any examples anyone can think of?


Nah, I'm not so sure they are more than wishful thinking by those of us who need assurance that the worst of criminals will somehow pay in the end. (pun intended)

 

[JLM]

I just got to thinking, proceeding with a jury trial without bodies may be a little risky. I know for myself in most instances without bodies, if I was a jury member might have a hard time concluding "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and then the guy gets to walk.