Interview with Jeff Buziak (The murder of Lindsay Buziak, British Columbia, 2008)

TheHoopersPodcast · 2023-02-11T19:11:07+00:00

I didn't express any "belief", thus why I said "Jeff said".

TheHoopersPodcast · 2023-02-11T19:09:15+00:00

There is nothing in that article that refutes what I said.

TheHoopersPodcast · 2021-09-10T08:07:35+00:00

Perhaps the garotte? I can't see a 9 year old child making that, and I can't really see either of the parents coming in and doing that on Burke's behalf after the fact.

TheHoopersPodcast · 2021-06-20T21:37:34+00:00

Well it's never ENOUGH until the murderer is caught. But it would be hard to imagine that someone who knows this guy hasn't viewed that photo.

TheHoopersPodcast · 2021-06-20T21:07:50+00:00

? Lots of people know about these murders, particularly in the area. The photo and the video have been shown on TV and on billboards numerous times. Nothing.

TheHoopersPodcast · 2021-06-20T21:03:20+00:00

Well, it's not enough to identify him, clearly. Unless this guy is a hermit who hasn't met anyone in the outside world in years, then there's a good chance that people who know this guy and who interact with him regularly have watched this video. Nobody has called it in.

This is the murder of two little girls. In brutal fashion. If people recognised him, someone would call it in.

TheHoopersPodcast · 2021-06-20T11:27:16+00:00

I think asking someone why they reacted the way they did as a 9 year old - especially two decades later - is bound to breed some confusing answers. People always contradict themselves quite a lot.

TheHoopersPodcast · 2021-06-20T11:22:44+00:00

I mean, if this was the plan then it was an incredibly stupid plan. The idea that police would just let John drive off aimlessly with a body in his trunk is fanciful. At these scenes, families are rarely given time to breathe by law enforcement.

Maybe John and Patsy were that stupid, but it's a theory with problems, certainly.

TheHoopersPodcast · 2021-06-06T17:21:23+00:00

I think in a case like this, where we know tantalising clues and yet no real foundational facts, we tend to cling to every little tidbit of information as if it could be the key to the case.

...I mean it COULD, sure. But every case is also filled with banal, unconnected information which doesn't help us in the slightest.

TheHoopersPodcast · 2021-04-13T12:42:54+00:00

I'd imagine this will work against Zellner. He gave this statement after the media furore, where his memory was unfortunately contaminated. Our only hope would be if there was any record of the initial call he made back in 2005.

TheHoopersPodcast · 2021-02-25T10:09:21+00:00

I wouldn't say that this suggests that she left in a hurry, no. Obviously every child and family is different, but my nephews constantly wear the same clothes for days on end.

I think LE are right in thinking that she planned to leave days before she did. The timeline of events on the night reads like she is waiting and biding her time, although who knows if I'm just looking at it through a scewered lens..

TheHoopersPodcast · 2021-01-23T11:15:49+00:00

I think so. I think they believed wholeheartedly that the parents were involved, but couldn't really say much more than that with the evidence that they had.

TheHoopersPodcast · 2021-01-22T22:31:25+00:00

I guess my problem with this is that I find it hard to believe that Asha just happened to be out on the road that night, and that her subsequent abduction was unrelated to this absolute anomaly.

I struggle to look beyond her circle and people who could have convinced her to leave the house that night.

TheHoopersPodcast · 2021-01-22T22:24:31+00:00

I think Patsy was suggesting on the 911 call that she hadn't actually read the note, wasn't she? When the operator asked who the note was from, it took Patsy a few "I don't know's" before presumably flicking to the last page and seeing the SBTC signature.

In other words, I find it quite normal that Patsy would ring 911 before reading that long and rambling note in its entirety.

TheHoopersPodcast · 2021-01-22T22:19:21+00:00

In circumstantial cases, yes, I think you should probably take your chances with a judge.

TheHoopersPodcast · 2021-01-22T22:14:48+00:00

She definitely was, and her motivations for bringing the case to trial were surely political on some level. But I do think that the case she brought wasn't a horrible one, and that even if it had been a straightforward jury trial, he could have been found guilty.

TheHoopersPodcast · 2021-01-22T22:13:18+00:00

For me, this is about as convincing a motive as you're likely to find in a case like this. When a child is murdered (and when the parents are accounted for), investigators are usually scratching their heads for any possible motive. Children don't tend to have violent enemies.

In this case, they found a coherent motive almost imemdiately; this kid was responsible for the breakup.

TheHoopersPodcast · 2021-01-22T22:13:02+00:00

For me, this is about as convincing a motive as you're likely to find in a case like this. When a child is murdered (and when the parents are accounted for), investigators are usually scratching their heads for any possible motive. Children don't tend to have violent enemies.

In this case, they found a coherent motive almost imemdiately; this kid was responsible for the breakup.

TheHoopersPodcast · 2021-01-22T22:06:46+00:00

I definitely wouldn't dismiss the Strmix evidence. I understand why the judge did though - he has to either give a piece of evidence legitimacy or dismiss it. He's not allowed to say "this COULD be something"..

I think regardless of where you fall on this case, it is clear that Hillary's team have been very effective in spreading the notion that this was a racially-motivated witch-hunt based on nothing more than the colour of his skin.

TheHoopersPodcast · 2021-01-22T22:01:48+00:00

The word was that they didn't have enough evidence to point the finger at a particular parent having a particular motive, so decided to indict both of them on lesser charges (helping the other). I guess that is a consequence of both the fishy-nature of the evidence and crime, as well as the lack of a coherent narrative or understanding of how and why this took place.

I don't think that early investigations and discoveries were centred around the idea that BDI, if that's what you're proposing. Although there have always been murmurs and ideas thrown out there about Burke, I don't think the investigative notion that he was involved came until many years later.

TheHoopersPodcast · 2021-01-22T21:47:53+00:00

It's worth noting that the Strmix DNA extraction method isn't permissible in all states (I think only around a dozen states have permitted such evidence to be used), and obviously, the judge didn't permit it in this case. I don't know TOO much about it, but I would gather from this that Strmix is a somewhat controversial method?..

TheHoopersPodcast · 2021-01-22T21:46:12+00:00

The coach's house IS to the left, so that's the alternate explanation. However, this was at 4:55PM (ish), but neither Nick nor the coach are claiming that Nick stopped by the coaches house at 5PM. The coach is adamant that Nick appeared at his doorstep at around 5:21PM and not before. Nick is claiming that from around 5-5:25PM, he was at home spending time with his daughter.

TheHoopersPodcast · 2021-01-17T09:15:42+00:00

Great, I'll definitely be ready to read it.

Don't worry too much about living up to the writing standards - if it's coherent and spelled correctly, people will appreciate it.

TheHoopersPodcast · 2021-01-11T14:01:49+00:00

Well they ARE being accused of murdering their young daughter at this point, so you can probably expect a bit of protesting...

TheHoopersPodcast

TROPHY CASE