The Murder of Lindsay Buziak

Apr 3/2022 Lindsay Buziak murder – the main informant and the RCMP Immunity Agreement

THE IMMUNITY AGREEMENT

Lindsay Buziak was the innocent victim of a senseless murder, targeted to sent a message to others that you don’t double cross the Mexican Cartel. Lindsay was never an informant, though someone close to Lindsay put the message out there that she was. Lindsay was not the one who made the call to the Calgary Police in November 2007 to rat out the Delalcazar crime group. If it had been her, she would never have shown the DeSousa house in suspicious circumstances. The woman who made that call to the Calgary Police had to have a powerful motive to want to cause serious pain to a rival. Either she wanted to take out the competition which is the reason that makes the most sense – or there was another motive we have not yet considered.

Shirley Zailo was landlord to a known drug dealer and Jason Zailo was friends with known drug dealers. Zachary Matheson, Chris Schwartz, etc. Drug dealers need methods to launder money and often they lynchpin to a mortgage broker or realtor who is willing to take a risk to make big profit. Laundering money is done through the purchase of real estate – or taking the cash out of the country and hiding it in offshore accounts in countries such as Panama, Cayman Islands, Bermuda etc. These countries are tax havens for the wealthy & drug traffickers/criminals wanting to hide their dirty money.

https://www.businessinsider.com/tax-havens-for-millionaires-around-the-world-2019-11#5-cayman-islands-11

In late November 2007, the crime phone was purchased in downtown Vancouver, the same time that the main informant made the call to the Calgary Police to report the drug shipment heading from Victoria to Calgary. It was also November that Lindsay was telling friends and family that she was planning on leaving Jason. Everything was happening around the November time frame so if Lindsay saw something she shouldn’t have seen it was sure to be around that time. Is it possible that she knew that the Zailo’s were laundering money and transporting it out of the country? Lindsay was smart and intuitive, and if there was something shady going on she would have picked up on it right away.

Lindsay’s murder – 14 years unsolved

The Saanich Police/RCMP know exactly who the conspirators are, yet to date no arrests have been made. If they are waiting for the evidence to arrest the actual killer then this murder may never be solved. Why not arrest the conspirators then let the chips fall where they may. If arrests are ever made in this case there will be retired police officers who’s testimony won’t be as reliable as it was years earlier. Unlike good wine, Crown evidence doesn’t age well, so the longer the case remains unsolved the higher probability that credible witnesses will have died, or their memories will have faded. And if key file coordinators have moved on “very important sources of information and guidance for the prosecution” is lost.

THE MAJOR STUMBLING BLOCK

Just how did SZ, the alleged main information first learn about the $6 million dollar shipment? Was it by a stroke of luck, or was there a more concerted effort on her part to obtain rival information, and if so, why? In order for the RCMP to have trusted her, she had to have had an established trusted relationship with the police based on a previous track record of providing accurate information. Above all, she had to be trusted to provide accurate hearsay information, or the informant had some kind of personal knowledge, which is highly unlikely. It’s very possible that the main informant had an established trusted relationship with the police based on a previous track record of providing accurate information.

The Saanich Police and the RCMP know who the main informant is. Not only that they have always known that Shirley Zailo and her boys had a business relationship with drug traffickers. Did they ever consider having the Saanich Police financial crimes division looking into this or were the cops turning a blind eye to the alleged money laundering that was going on in exchange for the information the main informant was feeding them? The Zailo’s treated Ziggy Matheson like family but what if that wasn’t really the case.

If Shirley was playing double agent she may have been working with Ziggy at the same time she passing on information to the RCMP. Zachary Matheson would have felt very safe living in Shirley’s rental property never dreaming that she was actually working for the cops. As far-fetched as this may sound nothing is impossible. Ziggy was arrested in 2013 for narcotics trafficking, and during that time his friendship with the Zailo’s continued. Charges were laid in 2014, then in 2017 he was sentenced to 6 years. He was released after two years – having served only 1/3 of his sentence.

If the informant had made a deal with the cops it would likely have been in exchange for immunity from prosecution on other crimes. It’s also possible the main informant was working with the police in order to protect her own son from any prosecution. Police will often let the smaller fish go in order to catch a bigger one. To bring down a Mexican Cartel would be a powerful reason for the RCMP to grant immunity to an informant. And maybe even throw in a financial compensation package at the same time. The RCMP does pay informants but the amount depends on a number of factors, including the type of information and the type of case. An immunity agreement protects the witness from having the prosecution use their statements or any evidence discovered from their statements against them.

while entirely speculative it could be that the jurisdiction of the crime would be somewhere other than RCMP territory. And who other than the main informant would know the importance of choosing a location out of RCMP territory? And to know that the Saanich Police lacked the experience to handle a major homicide investigation.

Jason Zailo encouraged Lindsay to show the DeSousa home the night of the murder. He lied to the police about why he had to stop at SHC Autographx prior to heading to DeSousa. Jason said on Dateline that he saw shadows through the frosted glass in the front door, but later changed his story and said he saw a man and woman standing outside, who when seeing him turned around and went back inside. Jason sat outside the home for 10 minutes, then moved onto Torquay for another 10 minutes. Isn’t it possible that Jason was the lookout just waiting/watching for the killers to make their escape?

On the Dateline show, the host Josh asked Jason if him and Lindsay were having any problems. Jason responding saying there was absolutely no problems between the two of them. Another lie, because all of Lindsay’s friends said that Lindsay was not happy with Jason and she was definitely planning on leaving him. Lindsay’s sister, on the other hand, said on Crime Watch Daily, “I absolutely adored Jason and I knew him and Lindsay were very happy”. I guess it’s possible that Lindsay’s sister didn’t really know the truth about what was going on.

https://truecrimedaily.com/2017/06/09/who-killed-lindsay-buziak-realtors-murder-believed-to-be-targeted-hit/

Shirley Zailo was at Lindsay’s condo the Friday night before the murder and claims she overheard a 15 minute conversation between Lindsay and the buyer where Lindsay gave the clients the 1702 DeSousa address. Shirley also claims that her and Lindsay went for a walk that evening and Lindsay told her that she was afraid of her ex-boyfriend Matt MacDuff. Lindsay is not here to dispute what Shirley said, but all Lindsay’s friends said Lindsay was never afraid of Matt. It has been proven that Shirley and Jason lied on numerous occasions and the only reason people lie is because they have something to hide.

The guys who lost the $6 million dollars were told that Lindsay Buziak ratted them out.

Who other than the main informant would point the finger at Lindsay – after all if she had any inkling that they were coming for her, she had to do something to save herself? After the Calgary Drug Bust (High Noon) the guys who lost the money were on the hunt for the person who ratted them out. It makes perfect sense that fearing for her life the main informant pointed the finger at Lindsay to take the attention off herself. The Mexican Cartel don’t play around and if they are coming for you – you know you are dead.

Immunity from prosecution is provided only where the information or co-operation is of such value that it is clearly in the public interest not to hold a person accountable for criminal activity. However, immunity should be the exception rather than the norm. The DPP is responsible for the conduct and supervision of all federal prosecutions in Canada. Thus, only the DPP through Crown counsel, and not the investigating agency, is entitled to confer immunity from prosecution.

Generally, immunity should be considered only when the information provided relates to the commission of a serious offence, or when the prosecution of a case is otherwise important in achieving effective enforcement of the law. As a rule, it should not be considered in relatively minor cases.

Giving informants immunity in return for testimony against others is necessary and morally acceptable in “exceptional cases”.

However, the secrecy surrounding most immunity agreements leaves them open to abuse – and justice will be served on if strict guidelines are followed. The dangers associated with reliance upon immunity-seekers are well known. The person may be attempting to purchase lenient treatment by falsely accusing others. Being familiar with the circumstances surrounding the offence, the witness is in a position to attribute certain acts to innocent persons.

The witness may also minimize his or her own role in the transaction and transfer the primary blame to others. Before offering immunity, Crown counsel must assess the truthfulness and candor of the information-provider. If the person is to testify, Crown counsel should be satisfied that a properly instructed jury would likely view the witness as credible.

Immunity from future prosecutions

The DPP is also entitled to provide an assurance of immunity against future prosecution for crimes that the information-provider is known to have already committed, but for which no charges have yet been laid.

Counsel should be cautious in providing immunity to persons with a history of serious criminal activity. While it may sometimes be appropriate to provide immunity to such persons in order to prosecute more serious offenders, counsel must be aware the person’s testimony will be viewed with great caution by the trier of fact; in some circumstances, reliance on such a witness may be damaging to the Crown’s case.

The Saanich Police tell us that this is a very complicated case, at the same time telling us it is very solvable. Clearly the police were sidetracked somewhere along the way, and here we are 15 years later and no further ahead then when Lindsay was murdered back in 2008.

PLEASE NOTE, this blog is not affiliated in anyway with the blog that Jeff Buziak runs nor does Jeff have any say in what is posted here. This blog is run independently and all responsibility for what is written lies with the owners of this site.

Email: murderondesousa@gmail.com

%d bloggers like this: