Sept 3/2026 Lindsay Buziak Murder – the delusional anonymous nighttime Reddit Creeper

**THE DELUSIONAL ANONYMOUS REDDIT CREEPER**

COLD RED PODCAST

Hosted by well-renowned retired FBI agents Ray Carr & James Fitzgerald,

the first Cold Red podcast about Lindsay Buziak’s unsolved murder aired back in April. To date, Cold Red has produced ten episodes, all which has drawn the attention of viewers worldwide. Lindsay Buziak’s murder was a heinous act and here we are 19 years later, with no transparency by the Saanich Police Department, no known suspects & no arrests.

Reddit is a highly reputable forum where people can express their views,

and for a few years now there has been a lot of dialogue about Lindsay’s murder on Reddit. Statistics show that 90% of the Reddit posters do not support the Mexican cartel theory, instead they believe Lindsay’s murder had a personal motive and was carried out by a local group of people who believed she had become a threat to their lifestyle – most likely someone she knew, someone very close to her, perhaps someone in the same business. (confirmed by the NBC Dateline experts)

After a few episodes of Cold Red, a new Reddit poster appeared. We’ll call him Reddit Creeper, because that’s what he is, a creeper. He’s obsessed, posts in the wee hours of the morning, mid-day, and late at night. He’s on a mission to convince the Reddit readers that it was an associate of the cartel who went into the DeSousa home and murdered Lindsay. This poster is using a number of aliases, but when you delve deep into the mind of each alias you can see it is the same person. They have spent every waking moment over the last several months doing their utmost to get the Reddit readers to believe their unfounded theory.

It’s evident that Reddit creeper was not impressed with the guests who appeared on the Cold Red podcasts.

In fact, numerous times on Reddit he’s called Lindsay’s father a liar, discredited the truthful contents posted on the Murder on DeSousa website and tells ridiculous lies about the owner of the site. Clearly, this Reddit character didn’t approve of what the guests had to say on Cold Red and even goes to great lengths to discredit what the first responder Lisa Jennings had to say on the show. Pay close attention to the words of these aliases, they are all the same person, Reddit Creeper, trying to disguise his identity, but unfortunately for him, anyone with critical thinking skills can figure out the identity of this person very quickly. He speaks to things that only an insider could possibly know. Rest assured I will not be scared off or intimidated by this sad pathetic soul.

If this Reddit creeper is so sure of himself and his theory, why did he not take the opportunity to appear on the Cold Red podcast?

Not only did Ray & Fitz put out a warm welcome to anyone who wanted to come on the show, but they reached out to the Saanich Police and to the retired head of the file, inviting them to appear. Sadly, Saanich Police & the retired head of the file declined. So, whoever our Reddit Creeper is, they’ve chosen to slink around on Reddit, using their posts to promote their own agenda, at the same time, doing their utmost to discredit Lindsay’s father, the first responder, the Cold Red FBI agents, the murder on DeSousa owner and anyone else who dares to disagree with their unsubstantiated theory.

This Reddit Creeper has shown no evidence whatsoever to back up their theory. NONE! While promoting his theory he also goes out of his way to support everything that Jason Zailo did that night, included the days leading up to Lindsay’s murder. Not only does he give his full support to Jason, but he also appears to be okay with Jason’s friends Greg Martel & Ziggy Matheson. Just what is the motive for this angry enraged Reddit Creeper to be out there on the loose doing what he is doing. Is he perhaps afraid of something? Is he afraid that one day there will be arrests, and he might be one of the ones who is arrested? Has someone been encouraging him to push his theory? If there was any proof to his theory, wouldn’t he have rushed to speak out on the Cold Red podcast instead of prowling around in the night as Reddit Creeper.

The posters who addressed the Reddit Creeper and the posters who Reddit Creeper responded to are not included here. And please note Reddit Creeper’s comments are original, the content has not been changed in any way. The Reddit Creeper believes he is a wordsmith, therefore tries to manipulate and confuse people by the twisting of his words, and the words of others. If you knew who this really was, you’d know that he is not that intelligent, his lights don’t shine bright, and his elevator does not go all the way to the top.

For anyone who thinks they know who Reddit Creeper is, feel free to send me an email anonymously. It would be nice to hear just who my readers believe this is. Of course, I don’t know who this Reddit Creeper is, but I sure as hell have my suspicions. If you happen to run into him out there on the Reddit forum, be sure to say hello. I understand he’s a very confused and lonely soul, and likely needs a friend to confide in.

No_Doubt54 April 28 12:06 pm

SatisfactionBorn358 The Zailo’s reputation for associating with drug traffickers and questionable individuals was well established long before Jason ever met Lindsay. At the time of Lindsay’s murder Jason’s best friend was Greg Martel, who is now known as the Ponzi-scheme fraudster who left the country and is on the run. The Zailo’s were also close friends with drug trafficker Ziggy Matheson who had also once been charged with murder. Yeh, not such good people that’s for sure

This is kind of the pattern with you, you keep pulling in people with criminal histories and trying to tie them to the Zailos like that somehow proves involvement. It doesn’t.

Greg Martel wasn’t a known fraudster in 2008, and Jason and Greg weren’t even friends the way you’re claiming. And renting a property to someone doesn’t mean you know what they’re doing behind the scenes, people involved in drug trafficking don’t exactly hand out resumes.

A lot of what you’re repeating comes straight from the “Murder On Desousa” blog, and you’re treating it like it’s verified fact when investigators have already said those blogs are full of misinformation and speculation.

Investigators have also spoken about how online blogs can affect cases like this. When names and claims circulate publicly, they still have to be assessed and either confirmed or ruled out through the investigative process, even if those lines of inquiry have already been addressed over time. That requirement to formally account for circulated information creates a significant amount of additional work and can divert attention and resources away from leads that are actually supported by evidence. In that sense, repeated reliance on unverified online material does not necessarily advance an investigation, since it still has to be processed in the same way as any other claim regardless of its origin.

And honestly, this is part of the bigger issue, people can convince themselves that what they know is important, credible, or relevant to the case, when in reality it isn’t any of those things.

Even Lindsay’s mom was clearly frustrated with that exact blog. She said: “some people have treated her daughter’s murder like a ‘game’ or chance to play armchair detective. She said she once asked a blogger to stop writing about her daughter’s murder, but they refused. ‘I’m Lindsay’s mum. I asked her to not do this … Shouldn’t she have some thought about what the mother would want?’”

She was referring to the “Murder On Desousa” blog, the same place you’re pulling this information from.

At the end of the day, repeating claims from a blog and linking the Zailos to unrelated individuals or even to other missing persons and murder cases doesn’t establish evidence. Instead of strengthening the argument, it stretches association across separate situations that have no demonstrated connection. It ultimately continues a narrative that hasn’t been supported by verifiable facts.

Icy-Professional394 May 2 7:20 pm Fri

I understand the point about nothing being established regarding Vid’s involvement, and I agree that’s important. But when discussing “misinformation & speculation,” it’s worth noting that some of what people are reacting to comes from the father’s own public statements, including allegations such as Vid transported a “crime phone” and persons from BC Ferries to his home the night before Lindsay was murdered, that the phone remained there until the time of her murder, and that Vid met with members of the Delalcazar family shortly after Lindsay’s murder.

Those claims are unverified, but they still exist in the public record. So either all publicly sourced claims are treated as disputed, or credibility is being applied selectively depending on the point being made.

PlasticSufficient634 May 2 10:08 pm Fri

The court documents state that the side of the house facing the street wasn’t searched due to “contamination” caused by first responders. That specifically relates to why part of the scene wasn’t examined, not a conclusion that the scene as a whole was not properly secured.

Claims about whether or not crime scene tape was present at the very earliest stage relate to initial response and timing, which can vary as officers arrive, assess the situation, and establish control of the scene. Without a clear, documented timeline of arrivals, it’s not something that can be used on its own to draw conclusions about how the scene was ultimately secured.

PlasticSufficient634 May 3 7:13 am Sat

I’m not focusing on wording for its own sake, I’m focusing on what the official record actually says, because precision matters when we’re drawing conclusions.

Police statements do not describe Zailo as the first responder or “first person on scene” in the way that term is normally used in policing. According to police, he and his friend were at the property waiting for Lindsay and, when she did not come out as expected, they went to the side of the house in an attempt to find a way in and check on her. Investigators later confirmed they were in and around the home before the scene was secured. That is different from being first responders or establishing control of the scene. Conflating those roles goes beyond what the statements actually support.

• Contamination

The court documents state that the side of the house facing the street was not searched due to “contamination” caused by first responders. This refers to a specific area not being fully searchable, not a conclusion that the entire scene was unsecured or unusable. It is a partial limitation in processing, not a blanket conclusion about the investigation. Investigators have not described this as deliberate interference, but as an issue arising from early actions before full scene control was established. While this point is sometimes used to suggest the investigation was “bungled” or fundamentally compromised, that conclusion isn’t supported by the record.

• “Single source” claim

It is not accurate to say police relied on key details from a single source. While one account was clearly central to the initial timeline, investigators also examined and cross-referenced multiple independent lines of evidence, including forensic and digital records, phone data, and statements from other individuals present, including the friend who was with Zailo. They also conducted standard investigative checks such as interviews and a polygraph examination. Police have consistently pointed to broader evidentiary limitations, particularly the lack of usable DNA or fingerprint evidence for identification, rather than reliance on one account as the basis of the investigation.

• 2021 updates

The 2021 statements about advances in DNA and genealogy instead show ongoing re-examination of physical and digital evidence using newer methods, rather than reliance on early assumptions.

None of this is about dismissing concerns or saying the case is simple. It’s about separating what is confirmed in official statements from interpretations that go a step further than the evidence actually allows.

No_Doubt54 May 3 7:27 am Sat

Klutzywall, you’re reframing what I said in a way that doesn’t reflect my actual point.

The issue isn’t whether the blog uses public sources. Lots of content can be built from court documents, articles, and interviews and still end up misleading depending on how that information is interpreted, combined, or presented. My point was that the blog draws conclusions and connections that investigators themselves have not publicly supported, and in some cases have explicitly pushed back on. That’s not the same as “highlighting unresolved inconsistencies,” it’s interpreting them in a very specific way and presenting that interpretation as meaningful.

And this is where your point about “overlaps” and investigators flagging things as unusual doesn’t really line up with what’s actually been said publicly.

When police talked about unusual digital activity, they were referring to Lindsay’s own activity, not the people Satisfaction keeps naming. From court records and statements, investigators found deleted chat data on her computer but couldn’t determine when it was removed. They noted unusual Facebook activity on her account, with missing wall posts that may have been deleted. They also said they examined her online communications, including deleted ones, and found nothing related to a crime or motive.

That said, the only external connection investigators have ever publicly identified is that Lindsay had brief contact with a family member of a man who was later arrested in a major drug bust, and they’ve said they don’t know the nature or significance of that contact. They have never said anything publicly that shows that contact was part of a wider network of people or a broader pattern.

That’s very different from saying investigators flagged multiple people tied to the Zailos or identified them as suspicious in connection with this case. They haven’t said that.

So when you say these discussions come from “overlaps,” what’s actually happening is that a narrow, unresolved detail involving Lindsay is being expanded into broader claims about multiple people and supposed connections that police have never publicly identified. That expansion is exactly what I was pushing back on.

Following up on something or noting it as “unusual” is a normal part of an investigation. It doesn’t validate the wider network of associations being suggested, and it definitely doesn’t turn those associations into evidence.

There’s also something else that doesn’t add up in what you’re saying. You’re describing the blog as something carefully built from police disclosures and investigator statements, but the person behind that same blog has also publicly claimed that investigators have openly stated that it is common practice to use deception and misleading information when speaking to the public about this case for 18+ years.

Those two positions don’t really sit comfortably together. If the foundation of the blog relies on police disclosures and official information, while simultaneously claiming those same sources are dishonest or part of a cover-up, then it raises a legitimate question about how that information is being selected, interpreted, and presented. That’s not dismissing it outright, it’s questioning the consistency of the framework behind it.

On the point about the case being unsolved, I never said people can’t question an investigation. Of course they can. But there’s a difference between questioning and asserting that police have mishandled the case or covered things up, especially when that claim itself has been publicly disputed by investigators. An unsolved case doesn’t automatically mean incompetence or misconduct, it means they haven’t met the threshold for charges.

As for Lindsay’s mom, I didn’t bring her up to invalidate discussion. I brought her up because her comments were being selectively used earlier to support a narrative, and I was pointing out that she has also been critical of the kind of online speculation we’re talking about here. That context matters.

What I’m saying is that drawing conclusions based on layered associations, criminal histories, and interpreted “inconsistencies” isn’t the same as evidence. If there were direct, substantiated links to the crime, that would be a different conversation. But that’s not what’s being presented here.

PlasticSufficient634 May 3 8:04 am Sat

I think we’re using “single source” differently in an investigative context.

I’m not suggesting interviews or a polygraph are proof of anything on their own. The point is that police investigations don’t rely on a single account in isolation. In this case, the account from Jason and his friend was one part of a broader evidentiary picture that also included physical forensics, digital evidence, and phone records. Those different sources are used to test and corroborate statements as part of the overall investigation.

On the movements during that window, police have stated that forensic evidence from the scene helped establish activity in and around the home, and that those findings were broadly consistent with the accounts given. That’s important because it means the timeline isn’t based purely on one narrative being accepted without checks, it was assessed against available physical evidence.

On polygraphs, I agree they don’t prove truth or guilt and aren’t court-admissible. But that’s also not how police use them in investigations. They’re one of several screening tools used alongside interviews, evidence comparison, and corroboration, not a standalone determinant of facts. So mentioning them isn’t about “proving” anything, it’s about showing the investigative process wasn’t limited to a single narrative.

Where I think we’re disagreeing is this assumption that if something isn’t fully publicly disclosed, or if one account is central to a timeline, it automatically means other evidence doesn’t exist or wasn’t considered. Police routinely do not release full evidentiary files, especially in an unsolved homicide, so the absence of public detail isn’t the same as absence of corroboration.

So the issue isn’t just terminology, it’s that the public record we do have shows multiple forms of evidence were used to assess and cross-check statements, not a single-source reliance.

PlasticSufficient634 May 4 8:33 am Sun

I think this is where some of the gaps in what’s publicly known are being interpreted in different ways.

On the scent tracking, we don’t have a definitive public account of exactly where it ended or the full context of that track. So stating it stopped at a specific location is an interpretation, not something established. Police have at times suggested the possibility that whoever was responsible may have left the area by vehicle, which would also explain why a track wouldn’t continue.

On contamination, it’s likely not a single-source issue. Jason and his friend being there first could have affected parts of the scene, but the court documents specifically reference first responders in relation to why that side of the house wasn’t processed. That points to multiple stages of disturbance rather than a contradiction.

It’s also worth noting that in many early “welfare check” or urgent response situations, officers, or others who arrive first on scene, may enter before it’s fully clear a crime has occurred, so some level of initial scene disturbance is not unusual and is accounted for in forensic work.

I think it helps to separate two different parts of the timeline here.

Jason and his friend being there first speaks to what happened before the scene was secured, they may have disturbed areas while trying to get into the house.

The court documents are describing something different: why investigators later couldn’t process a specific area, attributing that to contamination by first responders. That doesn’t mean they’re ignoring earlier activity, just that by the time the scene was formally assessed, that area wasn’t usable.

So it’s not really a contradiction, it’s multiple stages of activity affecting the scene.

And more broadly, questioning an investigation is fair, and accountability matters, as Klutzy said. But jumping from gaps or limitations straight to conclusions about corruption or a cover-up goes beyond what the available record actually supports. There’s a difference between “we don’t have all the answers” and “therefore something improper happened,” and that distinction matters if we’re trying to stay anchored to evidence rather than assumptions.

Trick_Exam_1037 May 5 11:58 am Tues

the bust it the leading theory. You’re on the right track Fort! According to one theory, the answer to that may be tied to somewhere Lindsay went the December before her February murder.

“In January before her murder, the largest drug bust in Alberta history occurred,” said Sgt. Horsley. “We’re talking millions upon millions of dollars’ value in cocaine. The people that lost the drugs know that someone spoke to the police.”

Police do have some strong theories though. One of them tied to a trip Lindsay Buziak made to Calgary just six weeks before her murder.

“This was in December and the murder was in February,” said Sgt. Horsley.

Apparently, while Lindsay was in Calgary, she reached out to an old acquaintance from Victoria, once by phone and another time through Facebook.

“We don’t know the nature of the call. We don’t know why she called him. We don’t know why she was on his Facebook site,” said Sgt. Horsley.

What they do know is that the person she contacted was the family member of a man named Erickson Delalcazar, and that shortly after Lindsay went back to Victoria, Delalcazar, along with 13 other people, was caught in the biggest drug bust in the history of the province.

“What we can say is that people lost a lot of money and the people that lost the drugs know that someone spoke to the police,” said Horsley.

Trick_Exam_1037 May 6 11:31 am Wed

I read on the murder on desousa website that Lindsay’s best friend was dating that guy, Vid.The website claimed the girl told the drug people Lindsay had ratted them out to the police.While police have denied Lindsay was the informant, those people might have believed it.

Trick_Exam_1037 May 6 3:34 pm Wed

I agree with most of what you said in your comment about the motive in Lindsay’s murder. To clarify, Lindsay was not involved in drugs or crime. Police have reported on that. She was not dating her ex, and her ex was not a big drug dealer. However, her ex was associated with a big drug dealer while they were in a relationship. I read that on her father’s website.

No_Doubt54 May 6 9:08 pm Wed

I didn’t “christen” the diversion theory. You and Satisfaction were already discussing it before I commented. I’m responding to the theory as it’s being presented, not inventing it.

You’re also still sidestepping the central timing issue I raised. I am aware two men were arrested on January 22, 2008, but the investigation and surveillance had already been underway for months before that. That’s the part you keep leaving out. Moreover, only those two men were arrested before Lindsay’s murder, with the rest of the operation’s members arrested months later, so any diversion could only relate to them.

While a news article states the investigation began in January 2008, court records and contemporaneous reports show that officers had been actively surveilling the operation for at least two months prior to the first arrests. The two men arrested in January were already under active surveillance at the time, which emphasizes how unpredictable the timing of the bust would have been for anyone attempting to use it as a diversion. This further undercuts the idea that anyone could have timed a murder around a January bust.

Framing the bust as a diversion ignores the established facts and timelines, reshaping the sequence of events to force a narrative rather than reflecting what the evidence actually shows.

So the question remains the same: if the theory depends on people strategically using the murder as a diversion or narrative smokescreen tied to the drug investigation, how would they have known the scope, trajectory, or eventual public timing of an investigation that was already active well before those January arrests?

Saying “word travels fast” after arrests were made still doesn’t address the issue of prior surveillance and the unpredictability of how or when a major investigation unfolds publicly.

The issue I’m having is that every time a factual or timeline problem is raised with the theory, another speculative layer gets added to explain it away. That makes it difficult to separate what is actually supported by evidence from what is being added to preserve the theory.

I’m trying to stick to evaluating the internal logic of the diversion theory itself. Repeatedly adding new speculative elements whenever a timing or factual problem is raised makes it impossible to have a focused discussion.

For corruption or leaks to change the timing problem, it would have to be widespread and perfectly coordinated, something that’s extremely difficult to keep secret across multiple agencies.

HearingCareless1862 May 7 12:24 pm Thurs

According to another platform, the website is a carbon copy of the father’s.The website owner, an 80-year-old lady, maintains the father’s claims despite telling everyone the site was full of lies.It was for this reason that she left his website to manage her own. Previously, she managed his website.

HearingCareless1862 May 7 1:57 pm Thurs

Yes, I heard there was a van parked on the side street.

HearingCareless1862 May 7 2:00 pm Thurs

Lindsay’s mom and sister are on record that Lindsay was happy with Jason. Of course, no couple is perfect.I’m sure they had their arguments from time to time.

HearingCareless1862 May 7 2:02 pm Thurs

Cops said the female had an accent.The said the couple who met Lindsay at the property are the killers.

HearingCareless1862 May 7 2:06 pm Thurs

The dad made claims the guy Vid was involved. It’s difficult to keep track of all the alleged suspects he has claimed murdered his daughter. I feel for Lindsay’s family. It must be really difficult having no answers. Let’s hope this case is solved one day.

HearingCareless1862 May 7 2:14 pm Thurs

I think you are right. The whole case is so sad! I think this is going to be one of those cases that will remain unsolved. A miracle needs to happen.

HearingCareless1862 May 7 2:27 pm Wed

Cops said she was associated with bad people. Her dad said it was normal for her and her friends to see large amounts of drugs and money. However, cops said she was not involved in drugs or crime. It’s a mystery.

HearingCareless1862 May 7 2:27 pm Thurs

I think you are right. The whole case is so sad! I think this is going to be one of those cases that will remain unsolved. A miracle needs to happen.

HearingCareless1862 May 7 3:23 pm Thurs

That’s pure speculation. You’re focusing on misinformation instead of reality.

HearingCareless1862 May 7 5:22 pm Thurs

Lindsay’s mom and sister went on the record and said so. I trust them over a random troll on the internet.

HearingCareless1862 May 7 5:36 pm Thurs

Police said there was nothing in her life, that would indicate that she was involved in anything of a domestic violence relationship. You are grasping at straws.

No_Doubt54 May 7 6:36 pm Thurs

Whoever provided information to police would have had no way of knowing exactly when investigators would act, when arrests would happen, or whether a bust would even line up with the murder timeline at all. That makes the idea of some perfectly coordinated “diversion” highly implausible.

And again, if the goal was to shift attention away from the people you suspect, using a fake real-estate showing tied to a RE/MAX-listed property would only draw more attention toward the real-estate angle, not away from it.

No_Doubt54 May 7 6:37 pm Thurs

SatisfactionBorn358 The theory of a diversion has not been a topic taken seriously over the years, but I for one, think it is a theory which makes a whole lot of sense. Someone wanted Lindsay dead and used the Calgary Drug bust to create the illusion of over there not over here. And it looks like that ruse to confuse the Saanich Police worked very well.

I don’t see how the “diversion” theory holds up logically. Lindsay was reportedly lured to a house through a fake real-estate showing, and that property was connected to a RE/MAX listing. If someone wanted to divert attention away from the people you suspect, using a real-estate setup would do the exact opposite, it would naturally draw attention directly toward anyone connected to that world.

The Calgary drug bust wasn’t some invented distraction either; it was a real investigation, and police have repeatedly said they consider it their leading theory. That doesn’t prove every detail, but it does make more sense than a theory that seems to contradict itself.

No_Doubt54 May 7 7:15 pm Thurs

SatisfactionBorn358 You make some very valid points. However, if the conspirators were aware of the drug shipment heading to Calgary all they had to do was sit back and wait for the guys transporting the drugs to be busted. The minute the bust happens they set their plan in motion to have Lindsay murdered. After the murder they put the message out there that the guys involved in the Calgary operation had Lindsay murdered. Whoever they are I have no idea.

What I’m noticing is that the explanation is shifting depending on the objection raised. First it was a “diversion” tied to the Calgary drug bust, and now it’s more of a “they just waited for the bust and then set things in motion” idea.

If the goal was to create a diversion for a pre-planned act, why rely on something they couldn’t control, like a police bust, instead of choosing a diversion they could control and time themselves?

The concern I have with that is it keeps moving to a version that fits around the timing problem rather than addressing it. Even with the “waiting” idea, there’s still no way to predict when police would act, or to reliably coordinate anything around that.

On top of that, adding steps like triggering a murder based on an unpredictable bust, and then framing others afterward, requires a level of control and evidence that isn’t actually shown. At some point the theory becomes flexible enough to accommodate any outcome, which makes it hard to test against the facts.

No_Doubt54 May 8 7:54 am Friday

The reason I pointed out that the Calgary drug investigation was real is because the “diversion” theory treats it as something that could be strategically timed or manipulated to redirect attention. But police were already investigating it long before Lindsay’s murder, which is exactly why the timing issue matters.

I was referring to publicly stated police theory. If you want the exact interviews or articles, you’re free to look them up just like everyone else does with the theories they support. Also, it’s a bit odd to demand sources for statements about police theory while simultaneously presenting the diversion theory as fact without any evidence that investigators ever supported it.

You still didn’t address my main point: nobody involved could reliably predict when arrests would happen or whether they would overlap with Lindsay’s murder timeline. That uncertainty is exactly why the diversion theory doesn’t hold up logically.

Instead, you focused on semantics and arguments I never made (“who do I suspect?”, “direct links to the house,” etc.). In context, “the people you and Satisfaction suspect” referred to the theories repeatedly discussed in these threads about Lindsay’s boyfriend, his family, and their alleged connections, not me limiting involvement to anyone directly tied to the property.

That also applies to the idea that only people involved in real estate could have arranged or accessed a fake showing. A publicly listed property or MLS/RE/MAX listing is accessible to anyone with basic internet access, so it doesn’t logically narrow the suspect pool in the way it’s being framed. At the same time, other claims suggest the suspects allegedly used scripted “buyer parameters” and a “corporate transfer” story that only a realtor would recognize, which directly conflicts with the idea that no specialised knowledge was involved.

My point remains simple: using a fake real-estate showing still creates a real-estate connection in the case, which undermines the idea that the setup was meant to divert attention away from that angle entirely.

No_Doubt54 May 8 7:59 am Fri

You’re not actually responding to what I said in the exchange with Satisfaction.

I wasn’t claiming anyone on Reddit has a definitive explanation for why Lindsay was targeted, and I’m not trying to solve motive here. My point has consistently been about the structure and consistency of the “diversion” explanation being presented, and how it shifts when timing objections are raised.

Your questions about who knew what in an alleged drug network, what Lindsay may or may not have known, or how organized crime “would normally act,” don’t address that point. They move the discussion into speculation about motive and capability, which isn’t what I was analysing.

The same applies to the repeated reference to a specific number of stab wounds. Police have never publicly confirmed an exact count, only that there were multiple stab wounds. Investigators also noted the brutal nature of the slaying might have been intended to make it to appear to be a crime of passion or send a message. Using an unverified number to infer motive is the same kind of speculation I’m pointing out here. So building motive theories off an unverified number is already on shaky ground.

Similarly, I never said it’s “impossible” for anyone to have had knowledge of anything. I said the idea being proposed requires a level of certainty and coordination around an unpredictable police timeline that hasn’t actually been demonstrated.

And saying I “live in an alternate reality” doesn’t engage with the argument, it just replaces it with assumptions about my position that I haven’t made.

My point remains the same: the diversion explanation being discussed keeps changing form to address timing problems, rather than being supported in a consistent way.

I’d also appreciate if replies addressed the actual context of my comments directly, rather than repeatedly reframing them into arguments I didn’t make.

No_Doubt54 May 7 8:59 pm Thurs

SatisfactionBorn358 Just what do you think the motivation was to have Lindsay Buziak murdered? Surely you must have an opinion.I’m not going to assign a definitive motive, because I don’t think that’s necessary to evaluate the claims being made. My main point isn’t about assigning a motive, it’s about whether the “diversion” explanation is logically consistent. It still doesn’t explain or support the idea that an unpredictable police drug bust could be used as a coordinated trigger or diversion in the way you’re suggesting.

No_Doubt54 May 8 9:06 pm Fri

I didn’t “christen” the diversion theory. You and Satisfaction were already discussing it before I commented. I’m responding to the theory as it’s being presented, not inventing it.

Framing the bust as a diversion ignores the established facts and timelines, reshaping the sequence of events to force a narrative rather than reflecting what the evidence actually shows.

Saying “word travels fast” after arrests were made still doesn’t address the issue of prior surveillance and the unpredictability of how or when a major investigation unfolds publicly.

For corruption or leaks to change the timing problem, it would have to be widespread and perfectly coordinated, something that’s extremely difficult to keep secret across multiple agencies.

No_Doubt54 May 8 11:59 am Fri

You’re responding to a point I didn’t make.

I never mentioned the burner phone purchase in my comment, nor did I argue that a November purchase date established the beginning of any murder-planning timeline. You shifted the discussion onto the phone itself, but that wasn’t the timeline I was referring to.

There’s a major problem with the diversion theory: timing. Police were already aware of the drug operation months before Lindsay’s murder and had been conducting surveillance well before any arrests were made. The investigation unfolded over a long period, with arrests happening at different times throughout 2008. So if the theory depends on conspirators strategically timing events around a future bust or police action, the question remains: how would they have known when investigators would act publicly, or even when surveillance had already begun?

Whether a phone was originally obtained for unrelated criminal activity, later repurposed, passed between people, or pulled from a stockpile doesn’t actually address the point I made, because the phone purchase wasn’t part of my argument and doesn’t speak to the timing issue I raised.

I also want to flag a pattern in your replies where the specific point I’m making gets reframed into something different, or attributed to me in a way I didn’t say. That makes it difficult to actually engage with the debate as it’s being presented.

I’m not arguing that every detail is a “smoking gun,” nor am I claiming to know exactly what happened. I’m questioning the internal logic of the diversion explanation itself, because it seems to require a degree of certainty and coordination around an unpredictable investigation timeline that hasn’t really been established.

HearingCareless1862 May 8 :10 pm

C’mon! They turned it over to the saanich police? Mr. Buziak said they were corrupt and covering up Lindsay’s murder. OH BOY!!!

No_Doubt54 May 9 12:17 pm Sat

Thanks for clarifying your position, though I think we’re still talking past each other. Let me try to frame this clearly. First, your argument now seems to be that the murder could have been planned before the January arrests, and that, once the arrests occurred, the conspirators opportunistically used them to create a diversion. In other words, you’re layering new speculative elements to make your diversion theory fit despite the timeline and factual challenges.

The problem with this approach is that it keeps stretching the scenario to force a narrative rather than evaluating what the evidence actually supports. You are essentially saying: “I want the diversion theory to work, so I’ll come up with any sequence of events that makes it plausible.” That’s fine for creative speculation, but it’s not grounded in the constraints imposed by the known facts.

Consider the realities:

Police surveillance and timing: The investigation and surveillance were active for months prior to the January arrests. Only two people were arrested before Lindsay’s murder. Any supposed “opportunity” for a diversion would have to be based on extremely limited and unpredictable information. You haven’t addressed how anyone could have reliably used the timing of the bust, even if the conspirators had some prior awareness of it, because the sequence of events and limited information available still makes such an opportunistic diversion extremely unlikely.
Practical constraints on criminal networks: Even if the network sensed police pressure before the arrests, they continued business as usual. That behavior makes it impossible for the conspirators to use the January arrests as a diversion, because nothing about the network’s actions would have created the opportunity your theory requires.
Evidence and solvability: Historically, murders involving organized crime have very low solveability rates. No one saw the murder itself, though a few witnesses saw the suspects at the property.There were no forensically identifiable perpetrators, and while the police may have considered potential motives, they cannot prove any beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if we entertain the idea of a “diversion,” the police evidence overwhelmingly constrains the narrative you’re trying to construct.

While the Calgary drug bust has been frequently discussed in connection with the case, the investigation is constrained by the practical realities of organized crime and the limited evidence available.

4. Your own framing: You repeatedly qualify the diversion theory by saying it’s “not impossible.” That’s a very low bar. By that logic, almost any convoluted chain of speculation could be “not impossible.” For example, we could just as easily propose that Lindsay’s murder was secretly orchestrated by an alien cabal and then manipulated via social media to disguise a mundane motive. It’s internally “not impossible,” but it’s not compelling or evidence-based.

The problem is that the diversion theory relies on multiple speculative assumptions that are inconsistent with the known facts and evidence. It does not withstand scrutiny against the timeline, police investigation, or practical realities of organized crime. Evaluated realistically, it is extremely weak as an explanatory framework. This isn’t about ruling out all imaginative possibilities, it’s about focusing on what the evidence can actually support.

Finally, regarding corruption or leaks: for those to meaningfully change the timing problem, it would have to be widespread, coordinated, and consistently hidden across multiple jurisdictions. That is highly implausible. Rumors and loose talk are not equivalent to the level of precision needed to make your diversion theory feasible.

HearingCareless1862 May 9 3:58 pm Sat

There was no relevance to it, I guess. He has no credibility. The cops even said as much.

HearingCareless1862 May 9 4:02 pm Sat

You must be one of his supporters. Actually, his account was that Vid transported the burner phone and persons from the BC ferries to his home the night before Lindsay was killed. He said the burner phone was at Vid’s place until the persons left to the murder house. He also claimed that Vid met with members of a local crime family after Lindsay was murdered. This was said on several podcasts.

No_Doubt54 May 22 8:11 pm Fri

youknowitsme321,Noted, Shirley renting to Ziggy doesn’t make her his partner-in-crime, just his landlord. That fact’s been on the books for over a decade, long before Capital Daily ever asked. So if the goal was to “validate suspicions,” I’m afraid the groundwork for that was already laid long before the interview.

It seems like we’re looping around the same point: being someone’s landlord doesn’t automatically make you “close” to them, and it certainly doesn’t make you complicit in anything they did. It’s a legal and financial relationship, nothing more. If we start treating landlords as instant besties or partners-in-crime, then every apartment building suddenly becomes a criminal syndicate, imagine the paperwork!

Also, I notice we’re skipping over my earlier point about your first comment. You jumped straight to defending the “landlord fact,” but didn’t acknowledge or address the broader context I laid out there, about the narrative of closeness and involvement, which Shirley consistently denied. That’s actually the part that’s important, not the fact that she collected rent.

And about your “now leave it at that”, cute attempt at shutting down the conversation. I’m going to respectfully ignore that part, because we’re not talking about gossip in the locker room; we’re talking facts versus spun narratives. But if you want, we could add a little footnote: landlords aren’t automatically BFFs with tenants.

In short: Shirley was honest, being Ziggy’s landlord is a fact, and it’s not “telling” unless someone is determined to twist ordinary property management into a dramatic saga. Facts first, narrative spin later.

Trick_Exam_1037 May 11 12:26 pm Mon

Police have named the mysterious couple as suspects and believe they are responsible for Lindsay’s death.The police suspect organized crime is involved.There is a belief among police that the killers reside in another country.According to police, a large group of people on the Island know more than they originally disclosed.The key lies in their hands.The information I just described can be found by consulting police statements and reputable news reports

No_Doubt54 May 19 8:53 pm uesday

Funny, usually when something’s getting ‘weird,’ people… don’t come back for a second helping. Glad you found a hobby though!

HearingCareless1862 May 20 8:05 am Wed

Actually, his account was that Vid transported the burner phone and persons from the BC ferries to his home the night before Lindsay was killed. He said the burner phone was at Vid’s place until the persons left to the murder house. He also claimed that Vid met with members of a local crime family after Lindsay was murdered.

No_Doubt54 May 23 7:48 pm

SatisfactionBorn358 Then please explain this No Doubt 54. When CHEK News asked Shirley Zailo about the guy she rented her Claude Road home to, she told them. “My family have “no” connections to the man that lives in that house. There was no truth whatsoever to that statement.

The issue is that you’re presenting your interpretation of a 2013 CHEK interview as though it’s an exact verified quote and context, when none of us actually have the full exchange.

You are claiming CHEK asked Shirley about “the guy she rented her Claude Road home to,” and that she replied her family had “no connections” to him. But that wording itself is your version of the exchange. We do not know the exact wording of the reporter’s question, and we do not know the full context surrounding Shirley’s answer.

What we do have is Shirley’s later clarification during the Capital Daily interview. And importantly, Capital Daily’s own description differs from the version you continue repeating.

Capital Daily stated:

“Shirley said by her recollection the question that was asked of her suggested a level of closeness that she still denies.”

They also explicitly noted:

“Though she admits to knowing Ziggy and acknowledges that her sons do too.”

So the actual clarification from Shirley was never “I have never heard of this person” or “I don’t know who he is.” Her point was that she rejected the narrative that she and her family were socially close to him or involved in his activities.

That distinction matters.

For years, people online were claiming Shirley was “best friends” with Ziggy, vacationed with him, socialized with him regularly, and somehow knew about or participated in criminal activity. That is what she was pushing back against.

And logically, why would Shirley try to deny even knowing him at all when police had already contacted her about the property and she openly acknowledged being his landlord? That would make no sense.

The Capital Daily interview actually clears this up. Shirley acknowledged:

Ziggy was her tenant,
her sons knew him casually,
one son played hockey with him,
but they were not “best friends,”
she did not socialize with him,
and she had no involvement in his activities.

That is entirely consistent with someone denying exaggerated claims of closeness, not someone being “caught lying.”

What stands out here is the continued effort to frame this as “Shirley lied,” even though the available context does not support that conclusion. The reason this keeps getting repeated is because the narrative falls apart if the distinction between “landlord/limited acquaintance” and “close personal involvement” is acknowledged honestly.

At this point, the only thing being repeated as fact is an interpretation of what people think the CHEK reporter asked and what they think Shirley meant in response. But Capital Daily’s own reporting already shows the issue was about the implication of closeness, not denial that Ziggy existed or rented from her.

HearingCareless1862 May 25 8:52 am Mon

In this case, the couple who lured Lindsay to the property and then murdered her are the main suspects.They said Lindsay did not know the suspects and they do not believe they live in Victoria.The police believe the murder was a targeted attack arranged by someone close to her.Those person(s) likely provided the killers with information, such as Lindsay’s profession as a real estate agent and the false claims that Lindsay was the “snitch”. According to the police, one of the two people who entered the home that night may have been the mastermind.

HearingCareless1862 May 25 9:13 am Mon

There are hundreds of alleged suspects named by the father.His evidence is nonexistent.They’re just assumptions. It appears the police have suspects, but there is not enough evidence to charge anyone.

HearingCareless1862 May 25 11:25 am Mon

It already has. Local media partners won’t go near him now.

HearingCareless1862 May 25 12:28 pm Mon

The last I heard, they have been unable to identify the suspect couple

HearingCareless1862 May 26 6:08 am Tues

No one was caught in any lies. The only person who is lying is you.

HearingCareless1862 May 26 7:47 am Tues

It was a targeted hit. Police did say the couple had a history of violence.

HearingCareless1862 May 26 7:54 pm Tues

The accent was not fake.

HearingCareless1862 May 26 7:56 am Tues

Podcasts are retelling what the father claims. Most of it is lies

HearingCareless1862 May 26 7:58 am Tues

The reporter was trying to refresh Jason’s memory by reading back parts of his police interview. Don’t make it out to be more than that.

HearingCareless1862 May 26 2:19 pm Tues

You must have read that on the father’s website and the sister (affiliation) website, murder on desousa. Most of the information on those sites has been made up. The police are aware of the disinformation.

Icy-Professional394 July 4 1:49 pm Saturday

That conclusion is being drawn from a single account, and it leaves out a lot of important context.

The report being referenced comes from one paramedic who remained in the ambulance and did not enter the scene. Lisa Jennings gave an account in both the Capital Daily interview and the Cold Red podcast. Her description of what she observed from the ambulance appears consistent between those two accounts. The only difference is that in the Cold Red podcast she stated she had to move the ambulance, which was not mentioned in the Capital Daily interview. However, her description of her role at the scene differs between what she stated in the Capital Daily interview and what she stated in the Cold Red podcast. Her account also differs from that of the Saanich Police Department. Why are her accounts different between interviews?

There were multiple responders on scene, and the situation she described doesn’t match that of others on scene, including her partner.

It’s also worth noting that crime scene management in active investigations isn’t as simple as “no one enters the area.” Initial calls to police in situations like this often begin as welfare checks or medical emergencies, and the understanding of what has occurred can change rapidly as new information is received on scene. Paramedics are focused on providing urgent medical care and may enter scenes before full protective measures are in place, as they are not initially responding to a confirmed crime scene.

Relying on one disputed account to conclude the entire investigation was mishandled isn’t a complete picture of what occurred.

HearingCareless1862 July 4 10:08 am Sat

It is refreshing to see a post from a person with actual critical thinking skills.

Icy-Professional394 July 4 1:49 pm Sat

That conclusion is being drawn from a single account, and it leaves out a lot of important context.

The report being referenced comes from one paramedic who remained in the ambulance and did not enter the scene. Lisa Jennings gave an account in both the Capital Daily interview and the Cold Red podcast. Her description of what she observed from the ambulance appears consistent between those two accounts. The only difference is that in the Cold Red podcast she stated she had to move the ambulance, which was not mentioned in the Capital Daily interview. However, her description of her role at the scene differs between what she stated in the Capital Daily interview and what she stated in the Cold Red podcast. Her account also differs from that of the Saanich Police Department. Why are her accounts different between interviews?

There were multiple responders on scene, and the situation she described doesn’t match that of others on scene, including her partner.

PlasticSufficient634 July 4 3:56 pm Sat

I think your point is fair in terms of scrutiny. Ray Carr and Jim Fitzgerald may have strong credentials, but credentials alone don’t establish accuracy in a specific case discussion. When guests make claims that have been publicly disputed, those claims still need to be checked against case records and official information. Otherwise, it’s difficult to meaningfully assess why the case remains unsolved.

No_Doubt54 July 5 8:37 am Sun

One of the biggest misconceptions about cold cases is that detectives should be actively working on them every day until they’re solved. That’s not how homicide investigations work.

A murder case is never “closed” simply because it’s old. With no statute of limitations for murder, the file remains open indefinitely. But after the initial investigation has been exhausted, there often isn’t anything left to actively investigate unless something changes.

Cold cases are typically revisited when there is a meaningful development—a credible new tip, newly discovered evidence, a witness who is finally willing to talk, or advances in forensic science that allow old evidence to be examined in ways that weren’t possible years ago. Until then, detectives can’t simply keep repeating the same interviews and reviewing the same evidence expecting a different outcome.

That doesn’t mean the case has been abandoned. It means investigators have reached the point where the next step depends on new information.

I know it’s frustrating that Lindsay Buziak’s murder remains unsolved after more than 18 years. Everyone wants answers. But saying police should “just keep actively investigating” or “hand it over to someone else” overlooks the reality that any investigator—whether it’s Saanich Police, IHIT, the RCMP, or another agency—would still need new evidence or new information to move the case forward. No police agency can solve a homicide without evidence that identifies the offenders and can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court.

If people truly want to help solve Lindsay’s murder, the most valuable thing isn’t criticizing whether the file is “active”—it’s encouraging anyone with information, no matter how insignificant it may seem, to come forward. That’s what has solved many cold cases years or even decades after the crime.

HearingCareless1862 July 5 8:52 am Sun

That website is run by an 80 year-old woman who used to run the dad’s site. The information is all the same. Complete nonsense.

HearingCareless1862 July 5 8:54 am Sun

The phone call happened, but the rest of the nonsense was constructed to match other storylines.

HearingCareless1862 July 5 8:56 am Sun

They probably heard that nonsense on the dad’s website or the sister site, murder on desousa. All the information is the same nonsense.

HearingCareless1862 July 5 9:53 am Sun

One of his supporters went back to supporting him. She runs the sister site murder on desousa. She criticized him for years and exposed his lies to Capital Daily, Gary Rogers, Dr. Phil, the police, and many others. After they all cut ties with her, due to some issues with credibility, she went back to Jeff and began to criticize and lie about the people who cut ties with her. This case certainly brings out all the crazies!!!

HearingCareless1862 July 5 9:58 am Sun

He seems to attract a lot of gullible women and then has them to do things for him.

HearingCareless1862 July 5 10:08 am Sun

It is refreshing to see a post from a person with actual critical thinking skills.

HearingCareless1862 July 5 10:14 am Sun

He saw them outside the front door and again moving behind the frosted window. Both are true.

HearingCareless1862 July 5 1:42 pm Sun

Nothing about the case will make sense to you as long as you retrieve your information from the nonsense blogs.

HearingCareless1862 July 5 1:44 pm Sun

He did not change his story, The blogs you retrieve your information from keep posting garbage.

HearingCareless1862 July 5 2:08 pm Sun

One of her best friends also encouraged her to do the showing. Lindsay was having money problems and was trying to decide if she should do the showing or go to the Bachelorette party instead. Her friend suggested she stay behind and make some bank. Jason offered to do the showing so she could attend that party, but she decided to stay. The police have this information.

Trick_Exam_1037 July 14 4:45 pm Tues

He’s not credible. Good thing you abandoned the story.

HearingCareless1862 July 18 1:40 pm Sat

According to Murder on DeSousa: The Connection Collection — Still Missing the Main Connection, the fuzz are apparently involved… along with everyone else who has ever crossed paths with anyone remotely connected. The mystery isn’t who’s connected anymore, it’s who isn’t.

Icy-Professional394 July 18 3:01 pm Sat

youknowitsme, I’m reposting a comment I made in another thread because it relates to the points you’re making here about statements from investigators.

This is where your comments become contradictory.

You have said:

“The Police identified that a prepaid cellphone used by the ‘clients’ was purchased in Vancouver several months before the murder…”

You also said:

“Saanich investigators explicitly stated they believe residents within the Greater Victoria area hold crucial information.”

And:

“This explains their public appeals and the launch of a new task force in 2021 with the FBI…”

So you clearly rely on statements from these investigators when they support your points.

But when someone pointed out that the FBI assisted with the case, you respond:

“Because they’re not assisting lol.”

Then when another user provided a link to the news article about the FBI assisting, you respond:

“Just because someone says something publicly doesn’t automatically mean it’s true. This is actually a common investigative technique used quite often.”

If you believe public statements from investigators may be part of an investigative technique and not necessarily a complete reflection of the truth, then that same standard should apply to the statements you have quoted as well.

You can’t have it both ways. You argue that those same investigators and institutions are corrupt, cannot be trusted, and may be deliberately misleading the public.

So why rely on their statements at all? If you truly believe Saanich Police and investigators are part of a corrupt system and cannot be trusted, why quote their statements when they support your argument, while dismissing them when they don’t?

You can’t claim investigators are dishonest and unreliable, then turn around and use their words as a credible source when it’s convenient.. Either their statements have credibility, or they don’t.

Icy-Professional394 July 21 8:24 am Tuesday

Hello Truth-Seeker7456, I understand that Cold Red does not claim to have all the answers and that no one outside the investigative team has access to every fact in an active homicide investigation. Before responding to the points raised, I would like to clarify the context. The Reddit discussion I participated in was regarding Lindsay Buziak’s case and the investigative journalist’s report based on information from unsealed court documents. The discussion was not about the Cold Red podcast. My comments regarding Cold Red were in response to one commenter who introduced the podcast into the discussion and made specific claims about it. Are you referring to my response to that Reddit commenter, who stated: “listen to the recent interview on Cold Red and Jim Clemente about the FBI investigation of this case, the truth immediately demolishes the Saanich Police department’s public relations story”? Or are you referring to something else?

My comments were not directed at guests sharing opinions, perspectives, or speculation. They were directed at specific factual claims made by certain guests that I believe are inaccurate and have been publicly disputed by police or contradicted by information contained in court documents.

If Cold Red’s role is to examine cases, present informed perspectives, and provide a platform for individuals with relevant knowledge and experience, what process does Cold Red use to evaluate the accuracy of information provided by guests, especially when other sources contradict parts of that information? For example, why was the paramedic’s account presented without addressing the fact that her previous account to the journalist had been publicly disputed by police, and that there were also differing descriptions of her role at the scene? What criteria does Cold Red use to determine who has relevant knowledge and experience when discussing an active homicide investigation?

You stated that I have been critical of your guests and questioned their credibility. That is correct, but my comments were directed at specific claims made by certain guests, not at guests simply for expressing opinions or perspectives. The reason matters. The credibility concerns related to claims about this case that I believe are contradicted by publicly released police information and information from court documents. I would also like to clarify that I did not listen to the entire podcast or evaluate every discussion point raised.

Icy-Professional394 July 22 1:37 pm Wed

You are asking people to accept Lisa’s Cold Red account as the truth, yet her descriptions of her role at the crime scene differ between interviews. If inconsistencies in statements are considered important when evaluating police and witness statements, then the same standard should apply to Lisa’s account. Why did she give differing descriptions of her role at the crime scene if she was accurately describing what happened

PlasticSufficient634 July 22 2:26 pm Wed

Her mobile number was publicly available on her brochures, website, and email signature, which explains why Lindsay asked the caller how she obtained her name. The claim that the appointment came through one of Lindsay’s former clients has never been verified. Lindsay contacted her clients and none knew anything about the referral. It also makes sense that someone planning to lure Lindsay to the home would not provide the name of a supposed former client, because Lindsay could have contacted that person and discovered that no referral had been made.

The police disputed the father’s claim that the referral came from one of Lindsay’s former clients.

“The woman would only say the young realtor had been “referred.” But when Buziak called around to ask her other clients, no one knew anything about it. In the documents there’s no mention of a “referral client” whom Buziak allegedly tried to contact but was away on holiday, as has been previously reported.”

Icy-Professional394 July 4 1:49 pm Sat

That conclusion is being drawn from a single account, and it leaves out a lot of important context.

The report being referenced comes from one paramedic who remained in the ambulance and did not enter the scene. Lisa Jennings gave an account in both the Capital Daily interview and the Cold Red podcast. Her description of what she observed from the ambulance appears consistent between those two accounts. The only difference is that in the Cold Red podcast she stated she had to move the ambulance, which was not mentioned in the Capital Daily interview. However, her description of her role at the scene differs between what she stated in the Capital Daily interview and what she stated in the Cold Red podcast. Her account also differs from that of the Saanich Police Department. Why are her accounts different between interviews?

There were multiple responders on scene, and the situation she described doesn’t match that of others on scene, including her partner.

PlasticSufficient634 July 4 3:56 pm Sat

No_Doubt54 July 5 8:37 am Sun

One of the biggest misconceptions about cold cases is that detectives should be actively working on them every day until they’re solved. That’s not how homicide investigations work.

That doesn’t mean the case has been abandoned. It means investigators have reached the point where the next step depends on new information.

HearingCareless1862 July 5 8:52 am Sun

That website is run by an 80 year-old woman who used to run the dad’s site. The information is all the same. Complete nonsense.

HearingCareless1862 July 5 8:54 am Sun

The phone call happened, but the rest of the nonsense was constructed to match other storylines.

HearingCareless1862 July 5 8:56 am Sun

They probably heard that nonsense on the dad’s website or the sister site, murder on desousa. All the information is the same nonsense.

HearingCareless1862 July 5 9:53 am Sun

HearingCareless1862 July 5 9:58 am Sun

He seems to attract a lot of gullible women and then has them to do things for him.

HearingCareless1862 July 5 10:08 am Sun

It is refreshing to see a post from a person with actual critical thinking skills.

HearingCareless1862 July 5 10:14 am Sun

He saw them outside the front door and again moving behind the frosted window. Both are true.

HearingCareless1862 July 5 1:42 pm Sun

Nothing about the case will make sense to you as long as you retrieve your information from the nonsense blogs.

HearingCareless1862 July 5 1:44 pm Sun

He did not change his story, The blogs you retrieve your information from keep posting garbage.

HearingCareless1862 July 5 2:08 pm Sun

Trick_Exam_1037 July 14 4:45 pm Tues

He’s not credible. Good thing you abandoned the story.

HearingCareless1862 July 18 1:40 pm Sat

Icy-Professional394 July 18 3:01 pm Sat

youknowitsme, I’m reposting a comment I made in another thread because it relates to the points you’re making here about statements from investigators.

This is where your comments become contradictory.

You have said:

“The Police identified that a prepaid cellphone used by the ‘clients’ was purchased in Vancouver several months before the murder…”

You also said:

“Saanich investigators explicitly stated they believe residents within the Greater Victoria area hold crucial information.”

And:

“This explains their public appeals and the launch of a new task force in 2021 with the FBI…”

So you clearly rely on statements from these investigators when they support your points.

But when someone pointed out that the FBI assisted with the case, you respond:

“Because they’re not assisting lol.”

Then when another user provided a link to the news article about the FBI assisting, you respond:

“Just because someone says something publicly doesn’t automatically mean it’s true. This is actually a common investigative technique used quite often.”

You can’t have it both ways. You argue that those same investigators and institutions are corrupt, cannot be trusted, and may be deliberately misleading the public.

Icy-Professional394

My comments regarding Cold Red were in response to one commenter who introduced the podcast into the discussion and made specific claims about it. Are you referring to my response to that Reddit commenter, who stated: “listen to the recent interview on Cold Red and Jim Clemente about the FBI investigation of this case, the truth immediately demolishes the Saanich Police department’s public relations story”? Or are you referring to something else?

Icy-Professional394 July 22 1:37 pm Wed

PlasticSufficient634 July 22 2:26 pm Wed

The police disputed the father’s claim that the referral came from one of Lindsay’s former clients.

Icy-Professional394 July 22 5:42 pm Wed

You’re responding to something I never said. I never asked Lisa to disclose confidential information or discuss details of the investigation. Whether she is considered a witness is irrelevant to the point I raised. She had no hesitation describing her partner’s role at the crime scene in one interview, so she could have consistently described her own role as well. That is the issue I raised. Why did her descriptions of her role at the crime scene differ between interviews?

I am not trying to take advantage of any boundaries. I am addressing statements Lisa herself made publicly about her role at the crime scene and asking why those descriptions differ between interviews.

Icy-Professional394 July 24 7:44 am Fri

Hi youknowitsme, can you please address the point I raised in my previous comment? You can’t claim investigators are dishonest and unreliable, then turn around and use their statements as credible sources when they support your debate. Either their statements have credibility, or they don’t. That was the question I asked, but instead of addressing it, you changed the subject and moved the discussion to a different issue.

Icy-Professional394 July 25 2:34 pm Sat

Hi II-Presentation378, I’m not attacking Lisa. Questioning a public statement is not the same as attacking the person who made it. I am comparing what she said in two separate interviews and pointing out the differences in her descriptions of her role at the crime scene, not criticizing her for speaking out.

My original comment raised a question about the differences between Lisa’s two public accounts, but that question has not been addressed.

Public statements should be evaluated based on what was said, not based on who made them. If inconsistencies in public statements are worth examining when they involve police or others, then the same standard should apply to everyone.

If the goal is to get to the truth, then every public account should be examined and compared, not accepted without question. The Saanich Police have publicly disputed Lisa’s version of events, so it’s entirely reasonable to ask questions and compare the different accounts.

Regardless of differing opinions on the details, the goal should remain the same: justice for Lindsay and answers for all those who love and continue to fight for her.

Trick_Exam_1037 July 26 9:52 am Sun

I don’t think anyone hired anyone to kill her. The man who lost 80 kilograms of cocaine probably killed her. His identity is known to the cops. Evidence is lacking in the case

No_Doubt54 July 26 10:50 pm Sun

If you have a personal grudge against Saanich Police, don’t try to hijack a discussion about an unsolved murder case. Saying any information given to Saanich Police will end up “in the garbage” discourages people from coming forward. That doesn’t help solve Lindsay Buziak’s murder.

Anyone with credible information is asked to contact Saanich Police at 250-475-4313 or Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-8477

Icy-Professional394 July 27 10:45 am Mon

youknowitsme, you say the Cold Red podcast is about the FBI investigation of this case, but it wasn’t. The podcast did not present any new facts about the FBI’s involvement. Instead, it retold the same false claims about the case that had already been repeated on other podcasts and by some of the guests appearing on Cold Red. Those individuals have been spreading the same false claims for years, and those claims have been publicly disputed by the police. They are not credible sources. How can Cold Red be taken seriously when they rely on people with no credibility and accept the claims they are given without independently examining the facts of the case?

You then say “the truth” demolishes the police department’s “public relations story” and that a timeline proves they manipulated the public. None of that is true. The department did not manipulate the public; you are the one trying to manipulate the public with your false claims.

This is the problem with accepting the false claims presented by those guests without independently examining the facts of the case. After [GB1] listening to those claims, Cold Red is now making assumptions about Saanich Police and questioning whether they are serious about solving this case, or whether the investigation was mishandled, without knowing what investigators have already done or what resources they have already used.

Saanich Police had already publicly addressed these issues in 2021, including the creation of a task force involving the FBI and RCMP, reviewing and retesting evidence, and using advancements in areas such as DNA analysis to develop new investigative leads. If I were Saanich Police, I would not have much confidence in their assistance after listening to that podcast. Maybe Saanich Police did not require VIDOCQ’s assistance because investigators already know the who, what, when, where, and why, but do not have the evidence required to reach the threshold for charges. Justice Robert Punnett described the case as having “extraordinary complexity” and stated that “the investigation is very much active and ongoing.

Icy-Professional394 July 27 2:19 pm Mon

You keep repeating the story about Jim Clemente’s phone call as though it proves the FBI were never involved. It doesn’t. Even if Jim did speak with Saanich Police years ago, and offered the services of VIDOCQ, he was a retired FBI agent, and that conversation has nothing to do with whether active FBI personnel later became involved and continue to be involved in the investigation. Saanich Police publicly stated that FBI involvement began in 2020, alongside continued RCMP support. Those are two separate issues, yet you’re treating them as though they’re the same thing. Saanich Police also publicly explained the reason for the FBI’s involvement. Investigators from the United States had joined a new team taking a fresh look at the unsolved homicide of Lindsay Buziak.

The new team included representatives from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as continued support from RCMP. Saanich Police stated that technology developed since Lindsay’s death had highlighted additional leads and forensic evidence. They cited advancements in genealogy and DNA analysis. Anastasiades explained, “The FBI is a resource that has solved cases using that new technology, new resources,” referring to the use of genetic genealogy. He further stated, “We are utilizing all available resources — in this case, the FBI — to advance the investigation and bring those responsible for Lindsay’s death to justice.”

Your claim that Saanich Police created a scripted media campaign and falsely used the FBI’s name for positive headlines is false. That accusation is based on the scripted social media campaign you and others are trying to push for your own agenda. Saanich Police created a new task force, and the FBI are assisting with the investigation.

Saanich Police did not use the FBI’s assistance to create an illusion of progress, hide information from experts, or for damage control. Your claims are false. The FBI’s involvement is genuine and part of the investigative efforts in this case. This accusation is only being raised now to cast doubt on Saanich Police and the FBI’s involvement after the Cold Red podcast aired. This is simply another attempt to generate media coverage after the media stopped reporting other false allegations years ago.

Icy-Professional394 July 27 4:08 pm Mon

Your claim that their track record is “completely shattered” is false. That is the belief of the people who continue to spread false claims and push the claim that Saanich Police are corrupt and dishonest. You do not speak for everyone when you say nobody trusts them or that they are no longer respected.

Saanich Police do not need to “work extra hard” to fix a reputation that you and others are claiming has been damaged. That claim comes from the same claims that has been pushed for years, that Saanich Police are corrupt, dishonest, or incompetent. The reason those claims continues to be repeated is to convince others to believe it, but repeating that claim over and over does not mean everyone will get on board with it. This case is unsolved because investigators have not reached the threshold required for charges, not because they are incompetent. If these allegations of misconduct are as serious as you claim, why have they never been brought forward through the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner of British Columbia?

The people pushing false claims are having the opposite effect. Continually pushing the same accusations and repeating the same claims has not built credibility or encouraged people to accept those claims. Instead, it has damaged the credibility of those pushing those claims and affected how this case is covered publicly, including the level of media attention and interviews seen compared to previous years. Over the years, a number of crime shows also expressed interest in covering this case but ultimately chose not to become involved after seeing the ongoing accusations, infighting, and controversy surrounding it.

What is also interesting is the contradiction in this position. The same people who repeatedly accuse Saanich Police of lying, hiding information, and covering things up become upset when police choose not to participate in podcasts, crime shows, or outside reviews. Yet when investigators do provide public updates, those same people dismiss or disregard what is being said because it does not support the false claims they want others to believe. If they truly believe the police are dishonest and cannot be trusted, why are they demanding their participation and expecting them to provide more information? They cannot criticize police for not communicating while simultaneously rejecting the information that is communicated.

Ultimately, we all want the same thing.There should be justice for Lindsay and all those who love her.

Icy-Professional394 July 31 8:24 am Fri

Hello Truth-Seeker7456, (Cold Red) I understand that Cold Red does not claim to have all the answers and that no one outside the investigative team has access to every fact in an active homicide investigation. Before responding to the points raised, I would like to clarify the context. The Reddit discussion I participated in was regarding Lindsay Buziak’s case and the investigative journalist’s report based on information from unsealed court documents. The discussion was not about the Cold Red podcast. My comments regarding Cold Red were in response to one commenter who introduced the podcast into the discussion and made specific claims about it. Are you referring to my response to that Reddit commenter, who stated: “listen to the recent interview on Cold Red and Jim Clemente about the FBI investigation of this case, the truth immediately demolishes the Saanich Police department’s public relations story”? Or are you referring to something else?

Icy-Professional394 July 31 8:35 am Fri

My comments were part of a productive dialogue in an open Reddit discussion where I was responding to specific claims being made about this case. I explained the basis for my comments by referencing publicly available police statements and publicly reported information from court documents. Anyone can review those sources and evaluate the information for themselves.

I agree that the focus should remain on Lindsay Buziak and the pursuit of truth. That is why it is important that claims made about this case are evaluated against the available information. If the goal is the pursuit of truth, why are claims that have already been publicly disputed by police or contradicted by available information being repeated without addressing that information?

Thank you for the invitation. I have explained my position in the Reddit discussion and the basis for my comments. I do not believe appearing on Cold Red is necessary, as the information I referenced is already publicly available through police statements and the information from court documents for anyone to review and consider.

Icy-Professional394 July 31 3:38 pm Fri

Thank you for the thoughtful response and for the invitation to join Cold Red. I appreciate the respectful way you have approached this discussion and the time you took to respond to my comments.

After giving it consideration, I will respectfully decline the invitation. My concerns have always been about the importance of examining the accounts and claims presented about this case against available information, which I appreciate is also consistent with your stated goal of examining information critically.

I believe the pursuit of truth requires looking at all relevant information. For me, the focus must remain on ensuring that my discussions about Lindsay Buziak’s case continue to be guided by publicly released information, including police statements and material from court documents that has been publicly reported.

Thank you again for taking the time to respond and for the opportunity to clarify my position.

Icy-Professional394 Aug 1 8:24 am Sat

Your claims go beyond what the available information shows. Questioning or criticizing Saanich Police is one thing, but claiming they were incapable of handling the investigation or that the FBI was only involved because they lacked the necessary skills requires evidence – none of which you have provided.

Critics have argued that Saanich Police should have accepted more assistance or outside help. However, when outside assistance is provided (such as FBI & RCMP involvement), the same critics then use that assistance as evidence that Saanich Police were not capable.

Accepting assistance does not automatically mean an agency lacks competence. Complex investigations often involve collaboration, specialized resources, and outside expertise. The involvement of another agency can reflect cooperation and the use of available resources, not necessarily an inability to investigate. By your reasoning, any police department that accepts assistance from outside agencies would be demonstrating a lack of competence.

Concerning your repeated claims about FBI involvement, what occurred between the agencies, and the decisions made during the investigation: since you were not part of the investigative team, you lack firsthand knowledge of the direct communications, follow-up, decisions, and actions involving Saanich Police, the FBI, the RCMP, and other agencies. You cannot accurately assess what transpired. The conclusions you are making go beyond the official information that has been publicly released.

Icy-Professional394 August 2 7:37 am Sun

The question is how you determine that those statements were inaccurate or that someone lied to police. How do you know that a perceived inconsistency proves someone lied or that information is inaccurate? Comparing public statements made over 18 years, differences in wording, or how information was reported in media articles does not, by itself, prove that a statement was inaccurate or that someone was being dishonest.

A perceived inconsistency does not, by itself, prove someone lied, was being deceptive, or was involved in criminal activity. Those conclusions require evidence beyond an interpretation of statements or differences in wording.

The public does not know what information investigators had, what details they chose to release, or why certain wording was used at different times. Therefore, a change in wording or additional detail alone cannot establish that someone lied.

Witness statements and information provided to police are documented during an investigation and assessed alongside corroborating evidence, timelines, records, other witness statements, and other investigative findings. The public also does not know whether a witness later provided additional information, clarified an earlier statement, remembered something they had not previously disclosed, or what additional context investigators had when assessing that information.

Without access to the full investigation, it is not possible to conclude that a police statement was inaccurate or that someone lied simply because wording changed or additional details emerged over time. Questioning information is reasonable, but concluding that police statements, witness statements, or information contained in the investigative records are inaccurate requires evidence to support that conclusion.

Icy-Professional394 Aug 2 9:14 am Sun

Hello youknowitsme, I will address your points in the order they were presented. Due to the number of issues raised and the length of my response, I have separated into sections to avoid exceeding comment limits and to make it easier to follow.

The concerns you raise in your comment demonstrate why conclusions about this case must be based on evidence, not assumptions. The same standard applies when questioning police statements, witness credibility, or the accuracy of information that has been publicly released. Missing information does not allow conclusions to be filled in with assumptions and presented as facts.

Journalists are not required to have been part of the investigation to report accurately. Their role is to review available evidence, documents, records, and interviews. The reporting in question was based on three years of investigation, police interviews, and access to court documents — not simply taking someone’s word for it.

You are correct that I was not present during the investigation. Neither was anyone outside the investigative team, including critics making claims about what happened. Not being present does not prevent someone from evaluating information based on available evidence, records, documents, and reporting. The issue is whether claims are supported by evidence, not whether someone personally witnessed the investigation.

The existence of confidential or undisclosed information does not prove police are misleading the public. It is not reasonable to fill in missing information with assumptions or conclusions without evidence. If someone believes police statements or actions were inaccurate or deceptive, they need evidence to support that claim.

Redacted information means certain details are protected, not that the available information is inaccurate. The fact that the public does not have every investigative detail does not prove the information that has been released is false. Conclusions about what the missing information means require evidence, not assumptions.

The public does not need access to every detail of an investigation in order to evaluate information that has been released. Investigations require a balance between transparency and protecting evidence, witnesses, investigative methods, and legal proceedings. The fact that certain information is not publicly available does not prove that authorities are misleading the public or that the information released is inaccurate. The issue is not whether the public has every piece of information; the issue is whether claims that the available information is false or misleading are supported by evidence.

Keeping investigative details confidential is a standard part of protecting an investigation. Confidential information does not mean the publicly released information is false or misleading. The fact that certain details are withheld does not prove that police are concealing failures or misleading the public.

Icy-Professional394 Aug 2 9:18 am Sun

The fact that information is released publicly, or that some information remains confidential, does not prove authorities are manipulating public perception. Claims of strategic leaks or staged disclosures require specific evidence, not assumptions based on limited public information. The purpose of releasing information in an unsolved homicide investigation is to seek information and assistance from the public to help solve the case. There is no evidence that consistent public statements over many years were part of a staged effort to manipulate the public. Creating a misleading impression would not assist investigators in identifying those responsible.

Investigators are often limited in what they can publicly disclose during an active homicide investigation because releasing certain information can compromise investigative strategies, witnesses, evidence, or future legal proceedings. Delayed disclosure does not prove police are manipulating information or hiding failures. The timing of what is released is based on investigative considerations and legal limitations, not evidence of a staged narrative.

Referring to sealed or confidential information as “hidden” implies wrongdoing without evidence. Information can be withheld for legitimate investigative and legal reasons, including protecting witnesses, evidence, investigative methods, and future proceedings. The fact that some information is not publicly available does not prove police are selectively releasing details to manipulate public perception. Claims of a deliberate effort to mislead the public require evidence, not assumptions.

Characterizing journalists as “friendly” to police assumes bias without evidence. The journalist’s reporting was based on his own investigation, including obtaining court documents through the legal process and reviewing the available records. His reporting presented information from the documents and investigation, not a narrative provided by police. Disagreeing with reporting does not prove that a journalist is biased or acting on behalf of police.

Public statements during an investigation do not prove that police are attempting to influence potential jurors or create a false impression. Investigators must balance providing information to the public with protecting the integrity of an investigation and future legal proceedings. Claims that police are using public communications to manipulate perception, or that evidence is weak or flawed, require evidence, not assumptions based on interpretations of publicly available information.

The fact that certain investigative details are not publicly available does not prove that police are hiding failures, errors, or alternative suspects. Operational secrecy exists to protect investigations, evidence, witnesses, and investigative methods. The absence of publicly released updates does not prove that an investigation is inactive or that police are withholding information improperly. Claims that police are concealing failures or misleading the public require evidence, not assumptions based on what is not publicly known.

The FBI’s involvement was publicly acknowledged through official statements. The fact that the public does not have access to the details of that assistance does not prove that the information is inaccurate or that the assistance did not occur. Details about cooperation between agencies may not be publicly disclosed during an ongoing investigation for legitimate investigative reasons. Claims that police or other agencies are misrepresenting their involvement require evidence, not assumptions based on the fact that the public does not have access to confidential details.

The details of inter-agency assistance are not necessarily information that would be publicly disclosed during an active investigation. The FBI’s involvement was publicly acknowledged through official statements, and the absence of publicly available details about that assistance does not prove that it did not occur. Information about investigative cooperation, methods, or resources may remain confidential for legitimate investigative reasons. Expecting members of the public to provide confidential investigative details that have not been publicly released is unrealistic, as those details would only be available to individuals with access to the investigation files themselves. Claims that Saanich Police or other agencies are misrepresenting their involvement require evidence that their statements were false, not assumptions based on the fact that specific details have not been released.

Verifying information and asking questions is reasonable; however, verification requires access to information that can actually be reviewed. In this case, you have questioned statements made by Saanich Police regarding matters such as FBI assistance, while the specific details of that assistance are not publicly available. Without access to the underlying information, those details cannot be independently verified or disproven by members of the public. Claims that Saanich Police are providing false or misleading information require evidence, not conclusions based on a lack of access to confidential information, assumptions, or speculation.

Icy-Professional394 Aug 2 1:53 pm Sun

Hello, this appears to be the same claim of a police “cover-up” repeated by you and others in this thread, only presented in more general terms.

What you are doing in this response is the same thing you did in your original comment: when specific claims about this investigation are challenged or require evidence, you shift the discussion to general examples of what could happen rather than providing evidence that it happened here.

The issue remains the same: where is the evidence that these things occurred in this case? As others have noted in this discussion, a lead investigator does not have unlimited control over an investigation. Major investigations involve multiple people and different areas of expertise. One person cannot simply control all evidence, all witnesses, and all future investigative decisions like you are suggesting.

As already addressed above, the fact that information comes from police records or court documents does not prove it is false or misleading. Claims that specific information is inaccurate require evidence.

If you are alleging that Saanich Police engaged in a cover-up, manipulated evidence, ignored witnesses, or intentionally prevented certain information from being considered, those claims require evidence specific to this investigation. General examples of what has happened in other cases do not prove that those things happened here.

Your theory that one lead investigator could control an entire homicide investigation does not hold up logically. A lead investigator may have a role in directing an investigation, but major investigations do not operate through one person controlling all evidence, witnesses, and decisions.

For clarity, I am not the journalist you are referring to, nor am I a police officer as you have previously suggested. I am simply commenting on publicly available information. At this point, I don’t think this discussion is productive anymore.

Accusing another user of being a police officer or a journalist is just another distraction from addressing the questions being asked. I’m responding to your claims, not your opinions. You say they are opinions now, but throughout this discussion you’ve been presenting them as facts. There’s a difference. Opinions don’t need evidence. Claims presented as facts do. The Christine Jessop case is a completely different investigation. Citing another case doesn’t establish that the same thing happened here. The discussion still comes back to what evidence supports those claims in Lindsay Buziak’s case.

Icy-Professional394 August 3 6:15 pm Mon

Calling it suspicious ignores the context. Both Jason and his friend saw blood on the floor when they entered the home, including blood on the stairs. His friend checked the main floor while Jason ran upstairs. Unless you were there, it’s hard to know how you would react in that situation.

Icy-Professional394 August 4 2:05 pm

If you studied this case, you must have missed the police statement that Jason and his friend saw blood on the floor and on the stairs, and that the killers actually tried to leave through the front door first. Personally, if I walked into a house and saw blood, my first reaction would be to get upstairs as quickly as possible to find out what happened.

HearingCareless1862 Aug 5 12:28 pm Wed

It is my assumption that the Saanich Police only throw away information when they know it is coming from Rumors on Desousa – Head of the “Wait Until You Hear This One” Division and Lindsay Buziak Murder – The Suspect Rolodex (With the Answer Still Missing). Police have already acknowledged that these blogs contain falsehoods, allegations, accusations, false confessions, and incorrect information. Can you blame them for tossing the trash in the dumpster?

Trick_Exam_1037 Aug 6 12:59 pm Thurs

In reality, people involved in organized crime do commit murder to punish informants who cost them large amounts of money. In this case, it was the loss of cocaine worth $8 million. That increases anger and the motivation to seek revenge. That’s got “personal” written all over it. What is the definition of a “cartel guy” to you?

She was murdered within days of the drug bust. That timing is hard to ignore. Police have also explained that murders involving organized crime are among the hardest to solve. One reason organized crime murders can be so difficult to solve is that those responsible often take steps to avoid leaving evidence that could identify them. That might explain why, 18 years later, no one has been arrested.

The boss could have carried out the murder himself. There was no need to hire anyone. It wouldn’t have taken much to plan this murder other than phone calls to lure the victim to an empty house. One of Lindsay’s friends could have provided those details, considering she worked in the same office. Lindsay’s father said the “crime phone” and the killers stayed the night at Vid’s house, and Vid was in a relationship with Lindsay’s friend. Too close for comfort for me.

The police said Lindsay was not the informant, but it’s possible they thought she was. It’s not a reach at all to think Lindsay was used as the scapegoat. She had connections to those involved in the organized crime group. Some people are in complete denial about that fact.

How do you think the police know that the guy at the helm of the Calgary operation was pulling people out of their beds in the middle of the night, demanding to know who spoke to the police? Because some of the people who were pulled out of their beds spoke to the police. The police know who it was.

Someone may want us to believe the boyfriend’s family was involved in her murder. That’s why they reject the drug bust motive and the reason she was murdered. I’m just not seeing it. Police have evidence that points them in that direction and have said that Lindsay was unknowingly connected to dangerous people through some of her friend’s connections. They probably meant the boss of the Calgary drug operation.

The person police identified as being at the helm of the Calgary drug operation had ties to the Sinaloa cartel. Organized crime groups don’t operate only in one country. They have members and associates in many countries, including Canada. So, the idea that organized crime somehow stops at the Canadian border doesn’t make much sense.

Trick_Exam_1037 August 6 1:05 pm Thurs

She was murdered within days of the drug bust.That timing is hard to ignore. Police have also explained that murders involving organized crime are among the hardest to solve. One reason organized crime murders can be so difficult to solve is that those responsible often take steps to avoid leaving evidence that could identify them. That might explain why, 18 years later, no one has been arrested.

Someone may want us to believe the boyfriend’s family was involved in her murder. That’s why they reject the drug bust motive and the reason she was murdered. I’m just not seeing it. Police have evidence that points them in that direction and have said that Lindsay was unknowingly connected to dangerous people through some of her friend’s connections. They probably meant the boss of the Calgary drug operation.

The person police identified as being at the helm of the Calgary drug operation had ties to the Sinaloa cartel. Organized crime groups don’t operate only in one country. They have members and associates in many countries, including Canada. So the idea that organized crime somehow stops at the Canadian border doesn’t make much sense.

HearingCareless1862 August 12 9:14 pm Wed

Rumors on DeSousa – Head of the “Wait Until You Hear This One” Division. Now featuring the “Look Over There!” Department – because apparently the dumpster discussion was getting too close for comfort.

HearingCareless1862 August 13 1:25 pm Thurs

I was reading through the comments and wanted to add my two cents about this.This is where I find the defence of the Murder on DeSousa: The Selective Credibility Department blog confusing. Klutzywall says the blog was carefully built from court documents, police disclosures, interviews, newspaper articles and public timelines. And here’s the funny part: most of those “carefully researched” sources ultimately trace back to the police in the first place. Those sources don’t magically fall from the sky.

A lot of that information came from the police investigation. But the blog owner has also said that police are corrupt or hiding something, and has said that false police statements and lies from witnesses would make the information in the court documents inaccurate too. At the same time, many of the blog owner’s other main information sources are people with long criminal histories, personal grudges against Saanich Police, personal disputes with former criminal associates, and people repeating jailhouse chatter. And they wonder why their tips end up in the garbage can. It’s interesting how those sources receive the credibility stamp from the blog owner.

Police have made statements at different points over the 18 years this case has been investigated. An earlier statement can still be true even if a later statement adds more information or context. Multiple facts can be true at the same time. The owner of the blog has made public statements over the years that contradict things they said previously, and has repeatedly removed or changed information in older blog posts when it no longer fits the approved version of the story. So if the blog owner believes that differences between what police said at different points mean they have made false statements or lied, how should we view the blog owner’s own previous statements and blog entries during that same period, including changes made to their own public positions over time?

This also raises a question about the use of court documents as a source. If the blog owner genuinely believes they contain lies and misinformation, why are they using those same documents as a source for the blog? They can’t treat the documents as credible when they fit the story they are telling and dismiss the information in them as not accurate when they don’t.

The problem with all of this is that the blog owner is saying these are false statements or that people are lying and is basing this on their reading of the statements made over a period of years. They can’t conclude that information is false simply because it doesn’t fit their interpretation. Yet they seem to decide which information is credible and which isn’t based on whether it gets stamped ‘credible’ by the Selective Credibility Department.

HearingCareless1862 August 13 1:50 pm Thurs

According to the Chief Connection Officer over at Murder on DeSousa: The Connection Collection – Still Missing the Main Connection, apparently everyone with a criminal record, anyone connected to someone with a criminal record, anyone who was murdered, and anyone who went missing somehow has a connection to Lindsay Buziak. At this point, I’m surprised my neighbour’s missing garden gnome hasn’t made the list.

HearingCareless1862 August 14 6:21 am Fri

No. My comment was about the ridiculous practice of dragging people who have not been shown to have any involvement into Lindsay’s murder by inventing connections between them and the case. The blog claims to want justice for Lindsay, yet, as Lindsay’s mother has said, the speculation, sensationalization, misinformation and defamation surrounding Lindsay’s passing are all so negative, unnecessary, and have made an already horrific situation even worse. You’ve now dragged Lindsay’s name into this in an attemp to turn my comment into something it wasn’t, adding exactly the kind of negativity around her name that her mother has spoken about. My comment was about how people are being dragged into this case, not about Lindsay or her murder.

How would you like it if people were constantly connecting your child to Lindsay’s murder simply because they decided there was some connection?

And the “your little daughter” comment is completely unnecessary. You don’t get to imply that I care any less about Lindsay because I’m criticizing what this blog does to other people.

HearingCareless1862 August 14 8:58 pm Fri

Are you the owner of Murder on DeSousa: The Police Statement Rejection Department?

HearingCareless 1862 August 14

I don’t think the killers necessarily needed to know in advance that Lindsay would be alone. They could have arrived before the scheduled showing, parked on the street next to the house, and waited to see whether Lindsay arrived alone. It also makes sense why they did not park in the driveway. If they were waiting to see whether Lindsay arrived alone, parking in the driveway before knowing that could have created a huge problem if she arrived with someone.

The fact they were seen entering the cul-de-sac one minute after Lindsay opened the lock box, along with Lindsay telling Jason at 5:30 while they were on the phone, “I have to go, they are here,” and multiple witnesses seeing the couple approach her at the end of the driveway, is consistent with the possibility they were already nearby waiting for her arrival. If they had already surveilled the area, were not locals, and chose their timing carefully, the risk of being identified may not have been as high as suggested.

The killers’ goal would have been to blend in as an ordinary couple attending a real-estate showing. No one was expecting Lindsay to be murdered at the house, so there was no reason for people in the area to be watching the couple closely, taking note of their vehicle or licence plate, or memorizing who came and went. They could not control who might see them. The fact that the plan succeeded also suggests they had carefully planned and considered the risks involved. They did not necessarily need to control every possible outcome, only the circumstances needed to carry out the plan.

If someone had been with her, they could have aborted the plan. Once they were inside, they likely locked the front door to prevent anyone else from coming in. After attempting to leave through the front door, they saw Jason’s vehicle pull up and retreated inside, locking the door again before escaping through the back.

They could not control every risk involved in carrying out a murder. They could have been delayed by something completely outside their control, such as a car accident or being pulled over by a police officer on the way to the house for a traffic violation. Murder itself involves enormous risks, yet the plan was carried out successfully. The same applies to the theory that the killers or planners controlled Lindsay’s movements to ensure she arrived alone. They could not control everything that happened to her on the way to the house either. What if she had been late, pulled over by police, or involved in a car accident? How could they have controlled those possibilities?

People often assume the killers needed inside information that Lindsay would be alone. A planned showing at an empty house also gave them an opportunity to observe the situation and act if the circumstances were right.

People also assume the killers had inside knowledge of the missing fence boards, and planned their escape route around them. However, police said the killers escaped through the patio, not through the missing fence boards. For all we know, they may have simply jumped the fence from the patio area and never even noticed the missing boards. If they had known about the missing fence boards and planned to use that route, that would have been the obvious exit from the start. The killers were attempting to leave through the front door and had to adapt after Jason and his friend arrived, which challenges the assumption that they knew every detail of the property and every possible outcome in advance.

That’s just my theory, but I think it shows there are other plausible explanations that don’t require assuming the killers had inside information or that Lindsay was manipulated into arriving alone.

Trick_Exam_1037 Aug 17 7:45 am Mon

I understand your point, but I think the same logic applies regardless of who planned the murder. There would have been risks and contingencies whether this was a cartel hit or something planned by someone closer to Lindsay. No one could completely control what happened before or after the murder. Even under the scenario that Jason was involved and brought his friend to provide an alibi, the same risks and contingencies would apply. Jason could not control whether his friend decided not to come or was delayed for any number of reasons.

He also could not control whether Lindsay was late or whether something unexpected happened on the way to the house. What if the killers had been delayed and didn’t arrive until 5:55 p.m., while Jason and his friend were also delayed and arrived at the same time? Lindsay and the killers could still have been in the driveway when Jason and his friend arrived. No matter which theory you use, you can come up with “what if” scenarios involving circumstances no one could control.

Your theory that Lindsay was manipulated into arriving alone doesn’t eliminate those risks; it just moves the responsibility for dealing with them to someone else. The fact that a plan involved contingencies doesn’t, by itself, tell us who planned it or rule out organized crime. None of us knows what the killers’ actual plan was, so I don’t think we can assume that a particular level of risk or method points to one specific perpetrator.

Couldn’t the same “less risky and convoluted alternatives” argument be made about almost any murder? Without knowing who the perpetrators were, their motive, or what they were trying to accomplish, how can we determine that there was a “less risky” way for them to do it?

That also raises questions about the Jason theory. Why would someone supposedly planning the murder go through a complicated series of steps and create so many potential risks when there could have been much simpler ways to accomplish the same goal?

Police don’t normally establish a theory through endless hypothetical “what if?” scenarios. They consider the evidence as a whole and determine which theory best fits the circumstances of the case.

Icy-Professional394 Aug 17 8:24 am Mon

There was more than one eyewitness who saw the couple at the house, and the burner phone was used multiple times to contact Lindsay, not just once to make the appointment. Police also have physical evidence placing the couple inside the home with Lindsay. They don’t simply take the boyfriend and his friend’s statements as the official version of events and leave it at that. They investigate those statements against the physical evidence, witness accounts, phone records, timelines and everything else they have. The fact that police determined the couple were responsible for the murder is based on the evidence they uncovered, not simply on what Jason and his friend told them.

HearingCareless1862 August 17 10:56 am Mon

This sounds like a job for the Murder on DeSousa. They have all kinds of departments over there — I’m sure the Common Denominator Department is already fully staffed, where two incidents and a Reddit post are all it takes to get called in for questioning.

u/HearingCareless1862 replied to your comment in r/VictoriaBC

Murder on DeSousa: The “Police Are Lying” Department — Where staff determine the police aren’t working the case at all, based on investigative techniques known only to them.

Trick Exam 1037 ugust 17 7:55 pm Mon

I never said he was a top member of a cartel. I said he was at the helm of the Calgary drug operatin and had ties to the Sinaloa cartel. What is the definition of a “cartel guy” to you?

Trick_Exam_1037 Aug 17 9:29 pm Mon

Yes, I’m confident this crime was the result of Operation High Noon. Police have also explained that murders involving organized crime are among the hardest to solve. One reason organized crime murders can be so difficult to solve is that those responsible often take steps to avoid leaving evidence that could identify them.

What suggests that the people involved had knowledge of the intricacies of real estate transactions, local listings, and Lindsay’s past business dealings? What information shows that “The Mexicans” used a past referral client who was out of town? Police dispute that. And are you sure Lindsay asked how they got her cell phone number? Lindsay’s cellphone number was publicly available.

Trick_Exam_1037 Aug 18 3:15 pm Tues

Who said Lindsay had enough information to trigger such a massive drug bust? The real rat would have that information.

Who said there were only “very few people” in their circle who were privy to such information? You are confusing information the real rat would have had with information Lindsay would have had. Lindsay was not the rat.

No one knows when the rat first made contact with Calgary police or what was said. We only know the investigation began in late November 2007. Police required time to organize and prepare for the investigation. The tip could have come weeks or even months earlier. Anyone claiming to know otherwise is guessing.

Who said the police knew the exact shipment date, location, stash house addresses, etc.? If the rat said a cocaine shipment was coming from B.C. to Alberta at the end of November, and the investigation began at that time, how did 25 kilos end up in the vehicle and another 42 kilos end up in the safe at the stash house in late January? If police were already surveilling the shipment coming from BC, how did that cocaine get past them and into the stash house?

If police already knew the stash house address in November, why did they only find the house after a vehicle stop at the end of January led them there? Why not obtain a search warrant and investigate the house earlier?

Who said Lindsay had access to that kind of intel? Only the real rat would have had that information. Lindsay was the scapegoat. The article did not say the Mexican woman gave Lindsay the name of a past client who was out of town. Where does it say Lindsay asked the lady how she got her cell number? Lindsay’s cell number was publicly available.

After 67 kilos of cocaine were confiscated in late January, Lindsay was murdered. The head of the organization and the remaining crew continued the operation because they believed the rat had been identified and killed. Since the threat was gone, they felt it was safe to continue. They were all eventually arrested well after Lindsay’s murder. You have to wonder why, after such a massive drug bust, they continued to use some of the same vehicles to transport cocaine from B.C. to Alberta.

Trick_Exam_1037 Aug 19 5:56 am Wed

No, I never said that. Someone or multiple people could have lied to the person in charge and told him Lindsay was the rat. Why wouldn’t he believe the people he trusted with his cocaine? There may have been circumstances that made their claim seem believable to him, even if the accusation was false. It’s interesting that you question why people would blindly accept Lindsay was the rat without proof, yet many people blindly accept claims that others have made about this case without proof.

I believe I already explained who I suspect murdered Lindsay. I’ve answered your questions. I’ve also asked several questions that haven’t been addressed.

By the way, the person who was the head of the operation was never charged with drug offences. He was charged with possession of the proceeds of crime, but those charges were later stayed. His underlings were the ones charged with drug offences.

Trick_Exam_1037 August 19 4:39 pm Wed

Nobody, I was assuming. How would they have known to pull that vehicle over right after the driver collected the cocaine though? The problem is, we don’t know when and what the rat provided to the police, or how many times they provided information, we only know when the investigation began.

My first reply was in response to your claim that the rat contacted the police in November and that “the police knew the shipment date, location, stash house addresses, etc.” Now you’re asking me, “how did they know to pull that vehicle over right after the driver collected the cocaine,” what do you mean by “collected”? The investigation had already begun at the end of November, and the vehicle stop did not happen until the end of January.

Could the police have been biding their time for some reason?

That’s a different premise than your original comment. You said the police knew the shipment date, location, and stash house addresses. My question was based on that claim. Can you elaborate on what the significance of this is?

The significance is not just the vehicles. My point is that after 67 kilos were seized and Lindsay was murdered, the operation continued. If they believed Lindsay was the rat, her death would have removed the perceived threat, which could explain why they felt safe continuing the operation.The fact that they continued using some of the same vehicles afterward is just another reason to question how confident they were that the threat was gone

Trick_Exam_1037 August 19 4:49 pm Wed

You did not offend me. I have referenced some online claims in some older comments but I was later informed that those claims were either false or speculative. I do not believe Vid was the killer. I do not believe Lindsay’s friend was the real informant. However, I do believe someone very close to Lindsay may have provided information to the Calgary crew and she appears to be the likely candidate.

A lot of the questions you’re asking have already been addressed in many of my comments, including my reasoning about the drug bust theory and who I think murdered Lindsay. Rather than repeating everything, I’d suggest going back and reading my earlier comments. I’ve also asked you several questions throughout this discussion that you haven’t answered. You can refer back to my questions rather than me having to repeat them back.

Trick_Exam_1037 August 20 5:47 am Thurs

I thought we were having a discussion about my theory, where I was responding to your point-by-point objections and asking questions about the points you raised. I also had some legitimate questions. For example, I asked you where you got the information that Lindsay was stabbed upwards of thirty times because I was genuinely curious where that information came from.

Our discussion felt one-sided because I was answering your questions while the questions I raised were left unanswered.

*Icy-Professional394 August 21 3:30 pm Fri

Information provided by Jason, his friend, or anyone else involved is not necessarily contained in every Capital Daily article, and Capital Daily is not the only source of factual information about this case.

If there was blood on the stairs, there would be blood on the floor after the killers descended the stairs and collected their shoes by the front door.

When reviewing a case with information released over many years and across different sources, it’s easy to miss specific details, even when they are publicly available.

Trick_Exam_1037 August 22 3:39 pm Sat

No, they can’t get him because they lack the evidence to move forward with charges. I’m sure that’s frustrating. The fact that no one has been charged yet speaks to the complexity of this case. Who do you think is involved in Lindsay’s murder?

*Trick_Exam 1037 August 22 4:24 Sat

You seem very focused on dismissing the Calgary drug bust theory and organized crime involvement. The question is whether the evidence supports or challenges the theory, not whether it fits someone’s expectations about how a “cartel guy” should act.

Do you really think people connected to organized crime only enter countries legally? Criminal organizations operate by breaking laws.

No law enforcement agency can keep someone without evidence. The evidence needed to charge someone in Lindsay’s murder is lacking, which is something we all know.

I know you don’t agree with my theory, and that’s okay. Everyone is entitled to their own theory. Police investigations are guided by evidence. The Calgary drug bust is a theory supported by evidence that police have publicly discussed, whether you agree with it or not.

If I didn’t know better, I’d think you were a friend of the Calgary crew trying to take the focus away from the Calgary connection.

By the way, I did not say the cartel as a whole personally recruited anyone. I said the head of the organization had ties to the cartel. The cocaine was transported from Mexico along the coast and coming in through Victoria. The cartel obviously trusted their “cartel guy” who they had those connections with. You also have no idea how long this operation had been in place before police became aware of it. The fact that this operation was able to move large quantities of cocaine suggests the people involved had established connections and trust within the organization.

We also don’t know everyone who was involved in the operation. We only know the people who were identified and caught.

Trick_Exam_1037 August 22 3:39 pm

HearingCareless1862 Aug 23 4:57 pm Sun

I’m sure the creator of a blog would consider their own work the best source of information. Murder on DeSousa: The “Best Source of Information Ever Seen”

Department – where convincing readers is part of the investigation. The “Discredit Any Information That Doesn’t Fit” Division is working overtime. Apparently, questioning the information is now considered “trying to convince readers it isn’t the best.”

I don’t think you give the Reddit group much credit. They are a smart bunch, and many of them have already challenged the information from that blog and shown some of that information to be false. Don’t board the wrong ship.

*HearingCareless1862 August 23 6:37 pm Sun

The assumptions are coming from your end. I repeated what the police said about alleged suspects. You spend a lot of time trying to shut down users who post information you don’t agree with and claim the police are corrupt to make people question the information coming from them. Seems like those efforts have been futile, because people are still reading the information and discussing it. Many of your comments have been removed too.

PlasticSufficient634 August 23 8:26 pm Sun

Seems like you’re the one pushing your own agenda from what I’ve read in all your comments. Even when someone quotes actual statements from police or from court documents that doesn’t fit the information you disseminate, you try to make people doubt the information from the official records by claiming the police are corrupt, the information is wrong, or people lied to police. Then when someone posts a theory that doesn’t fit yours, you try to make people question the person posting it by suggesting they are protecting the “real conspirators.” I’ve seen many users point this out to you. You’ve also accused users of being police, Crown, journalists, friends or relatives of the Zailos. Different ways of doing the same thing, trying to get people to stop paying attention to factual information because it doesn’t line up with the information you are disseminating. Is that what your motive is?

This is doing a disservice to Lindsay. She deserves justice.

PlasticSufficient634 August 26 5:31 am Wed

Unsolved Mysteries Lindsay Buziak’s mother pleads for information

It looks like you’re choosing to avoid your earlier remarks. Not surprising

Trick_Exam_1037 August 24 7:56 pm Mon

It appears you’ve misinterpreted what I said. I’ve always presented this as my theory. We’ve had this discussion before. You know my reasons behind the Calgary theory, and I’ve already provided the information supporting it, which included information from what police have said about it, because they had the evidence that led them to investigate the Calgary connection in the first place. My theory is an explanation of how something may have happened.

I believe you’re the one scoffing at other theories, not the other way around. Now you’re claiming I demean any theory that differs from mine, when that is exactly what you are doing to mine.

Trick_Exam_1037 August 24 9:14 pm Mon

We’ve already discussed my Calgary theory and who my suspect is in our previous discussion. My comments were made within that context, including the lack of evidence connecting the suspects police have spoken about to the crime. Theories require an explanation and I provided mine in my theory.

Your new point-by-point objections should be directed at Satisfaction, not me. They were the person who said, “they know who he is but they can’t get him” and “they can’t get him because it’s not him.” I was responding to their comment.

In our previous discussion, you claimed I asked questions that were argumentative and that you were not interested in arguing. Yet you are now asking questions that are argumentative and directing them at the wrong person.

Nothing has changed from what I said in our previous discussion, where that discussion ended, and I’m not interested in carrying it on here.

Trick_Exam_1037 August 25 7:29 am Tues

I agree. Police have said the same thing about misinformation muddying the waters, wasting resources and forcing them to chase false leads instead of focusing those resources where they’re needed, finding Lindsay’s real killers.

HearingCareless1862 August 27 12:29 pm Thurs

So you’re saying police secretly fed false information to the father, knowing he’d publish it, so they could secretly steer the investigation through blogs they publicly say contain false and fabricated information? And because the police theories don’t match the theory on those blogs, this mysterious cop was supposedly steering the investigation where he wanted it to go? Four months to come up with that one and respond? Impressive!

HearingCareless1862 August 27 12:32 pm Thurs

Again, the same mysterious cop? In your first comment you said the information was false, and now you say it was either true or false. So which is it? The story seems to be changing as you go along. Did you forget to edit your second comment to match the changes in your first comment? And this same cop was supposedly secretly feeding false information to the father, knowing it would be published, all as part of some master plan to steer the investigation? This is getting better and better. I can’t wait to hear what comes next.

HearingCareless1862 August 27 1:52 pm Thurs

“Over the years?” You’re the one making this into something it isn’t by bringing in a mysterious Saanich cop every time the father’s information is questioned. I’m just pointing out the changing explanations in what you’re saying**.** If you know this information came from the same cop, why are you saying it was “either true or false”? Which is it? You’re not sounding too credible right now. You seem to be working pretty hard to explain away the false information. Anyway, I think the changing explanations speak for themselves.

HearingCareless1862 August 27 2:11 pm Thurs

“Fact” now? A minute ago you said it was either true or false. You really need to pick a version and stick with it. I have to admit, the authoritative tone is impressive. You keep accusing me of trying to confuse people, while you’re the one throwing around your so-called “facts” to defend information the police have said is false and fabricated. I suppose the evidence for those “facts” is a secret too? At this point, I am starting to wonder what the motive is.

I’ve seen all the information on these threads that you claim are “FACTS,” and they’re not. Give it up and call it a day.

Hearing Careless1862 August 27 2:15 pm Thurs

So now we’re back to “not necessarily true or false”? That’s quite a change from “Fact, cop gave Jeff false information” and “Don’t to dispute the facts.”

And I didn’t invent the “steering the investigation” part, you said the cop was “steering the investigation the way he wanted it to go. “I just pointed out how bizarre that claim sounds. You can dress it up with “provenance,” “reliability” and controlled release of information,” but you still haven’t shown how you know that this mysterious cop was doing what you claim.

I think we’ve squeezed enough out of this conversation.

HearingCareless1862 August 30 Sun

This is exactly what you do when someone brings up information about the Calgary drug bust that goes against the theory you’ve been pushing. You’ve previously said, “I for one, think it is a theory which makes a whole lot of sense. Someone wanted Lindsay dead and used the Calgary Drug bust to create the illusion of over there not over here. And it looks like that ruse to confuse the Saanich Police worked very well.” But a few days ago you said, “That information was given to the dad by one particular Saanich cop.

One thing is for certain, the cops would never have shared confidential information such as this with the father, mother or anyone else. But they would share it with the father knowing he would probably make it public – and he did. Just like that one cop hoped he would. Nothing like getting an innocent family member to steer the investigation you want it to go. “And you’ve accused numerous people who post information you disagree with of being that same “Saanich cop.”

So which is it? You or originally said the Calgary drug bust was the ruse used to confuse Saanich Police, but now you’re claiming a Saanich cop gave Lindsay’s father false information to steer the investigation. The explanation changes depending on what information you’re trying to discredit, but the goal is the same, discredit police information that supports the Calgary drug bust theory and discredit anyone who posts about it, while defending the information being pushed on the blog. You’re not challenging the facts; you’re trying to make people stop believing them.

HearingCareless1862 August 30 8:33 am Sun

No one is trying to “destroy his credibility.” People are stating what police reported to the media: that the father has posted false information. That isn’t slander, it’s repeating what the police said. You are trying to shut people down for posting information they got from the police.

What’s particularly disturbing is that Lindsay’s own mother has asked a blogger to stop treating her daughter’s murder like a game. Yet the blogger seems more concerned with keeping their theory alive and collecting “likes” than respecting what Lindsay’s mother has asked for.

HearingCareless1862 Sept 4 1:35 pm Friday

My neighbour’s missing garden gnome will probably make the list of suspects now because I blocked the blog owner on Reddit last week after their behaviour toward me had become excessive. They have at least hundred usernames! They are not playing with a full deck.

HearingCareless1862 Sept 4 2:06 pm

His behavior is seemingly suspicious to people who follow certain blogs. That’s

Understandable. The blind leading the blind? Blogs can write anything they want, but whatever explanation is needed to keep the next chapter of their storybook fantasy going.

It doesn’t sound like the police think the boyfriend’s behavior was suspicious, and they’re the ones who investigated the case and know what the evidence showed.

EMAIL ADDRESS: murderondesousa&gmail.com

Sept 3/2026 Lindsay Buziak Murder – the delusional anonymous nighttime Reddit Creeper

Share this:

Like this: