April 10/2022 Lindsay Buziak Murder – criminal negligence vs conspiracy to commit murder?
When it comes to solving crimes there is always going to be uncertainty and loose ends.
Just because something cannot be proven with rock solid evidence does not make it it untrue, let alone speculation. Many crimes require the drawing of inferences from circumstantial evidence. A conspiracy involves conspirators doing something, then doing their utmost to conceal what they have done. It is important to come up with a hypothesis of the crime, based on known facts in the public realm, some sort of insider knowledge, plus drawing on logical inferences. And there are lots of inferences to draw from in this case. For further information on circumstantial evidence and inferences click on the link below.
What crime would or could the so called conspirators be charged with?
I guess it would depend on their level of participation. Did Jason or his mother know that Lindsay Buziak would likely be killed as a matter of identifying her as the main informant? Well, if the main informant pointed the finger at Lindsay because she feared for her own life, then clearly we can conclude that she knew Lindsay’s life was in imminent danger based on her actions.
The Saanich Police insist that there were only two people other than Lindsay that went into the house that night. On the Dateline show which aired November 2010, Detective Rob McColl told the viewers that there could actually be 5-7 people involved in Lindsay’s murder. If it turns out that any of the Delalcazar brothers or Vid Acevedo were involved in the conspiracy to murder Lindsay, they would likely be looking at a “conspiracy to commit murder charge”. It would be interesting to know who called the hit and what kind of charge they would be looking at. As Vid was on a witch-hunt looking for the Zailo’s right after the murder it suggests that he found out after the fact that Lindsay was not the one who ratted them out, and it was more apt to have been a member of the Zailo family.
Is it possible that today the police have totally different suspects in mind than they did back in 2010 when Detective Rob McColl spoke on Dateline? Seemingly, their total focus was on the people involved in the Calgary Drug Bust. And I suspect at that time they had no idea who the main informant really was, or the role her and her family may have played in Lindsay’s murder. The police keep telling us that this murder is complicated and sure, at one time that may have been the case. However, this is 2022, and there is enough evidence, as circumstantial as some of it might be to have a clear picture of who is involved in this heinous crime. So just what more evidence is it that the police still need in order to make arrests.
Jason’s actions the night of the murder all point to his knowing that something wasn’t right and that Lindsay’s life would be in danger if she stepped inside that house.
Not only did he lie to the police about his reason for going to the house, he arrived 15 minutes late then sat around doing nothing. Yes, indeed the inferences drawn from his actions are circumstantial, but cumulatively it is enough for a prosecutor to build a strong case. In order to prosecute you don’t need a “high probability” of conviction, just a “reasonable prospect” of conviction. What must be considered is this, “what would any reasonable person have done if they had any suspicious that Lindsay’s life would be in danger if she had entered the DeSousa home that night? I think we all know the answer to that, a normal person would have made sure she did not go to the house alone. In fact, no matter how strong willed and independent Lindsay was, Jason could have insisted that he take over the showing. It would have made far more sense than being 15 minutes late and sitting there doing nothing for another half hour.
INFERENCES THAT WILL HAVE TO BE EXPLAINED IN A COURT OF LAW BY AN ACCUSED.
Why did Jason Zailo tell the police that he was going to the house because he had papers to sign, then change his story a few years later? There were no papers to sign.
Why did Jason say on Dateline that when he pulled into the cul-de-sac he saw shadows through the frosted glass in the window of the front door? The police would later make a public statement saying that Jason actually saw the man and woman standing on the front steps, then turn around and go back inside the house when they saw him pull into the cul-de-sac. Even today, his friend Cohen Oatman insists he never saw anyone standing on the front steps when they pulled into the cul-de-sac.
When Jason was questioned on the Dateline show he said there were no problems between him and Lindsay and that everything was fine? All Lindsay’s friends said differently.
After leaving SHC at 5:30 why did Jason call his brother for directions to the DeSousa house? Why didn’t he call his mother who he knew had been in the house before? She could have easily explained to Jason how to get there.
These are just a few of the endless inferences that can be drawn from Jason’s actions the night of the murder. Although it is all circumstantial, the inferences can be used in which to build a strong case for the prosecution.
Can the conspirators be charged with conspiracy to commit murder or is this a case of criminal negligence?
Negligence is a factor that may lead to criminal liability and if found guilty punishes the consequences of mindless action. Wanton disregard signifies more than gross negligence, in the objective sense, it requires a degree of awareness to the threat of the life of another. In other words, a willful blindness to that threat is culpable in light of the gravity of the risk at hand. The proof of the conduct will cast an evidentiary burden on the accused to explain why the inference should not be drawn.
Even though Jason’s conduct may not have been the sole or main cause of Lindsay’s death his inactions contributed significantly to her death. The Crown will have to consider all the evidence concerning the cause of Lindsay’s death, and they must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Jason’s conduct did or did not, contribute to her death. The standard of proof is not determined by a person’s character but by their actions.
IF YOU SIT BACK AND DO NOTHING OR SHOW WANTON RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE LIFE OR SAFETY OF ANOTHER PERSON YOU CAN BE HELD CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE.
Sleuthing serious crime has become a labor-intensive, expensive business.
The price tag for even the most straightforward murder probe, one where the killer is caught standing over the body with a smoking gun, is easily half a million bucks. Why? A series of court decisions raised the bar for the way evidence is collected and disclosed —justifiable measures, but costly ones. There are more high-tech investigation tools, too, and documenting their use takes time.
In addition, the burden of proof has shifted so that it’s no longer enough to demonstrate that the bad guy is guilty: “What you have to prove is that no one else could have done it,” says Victoria’s police chief, Frank Elsner.
(Note that after the 2010 murder of Fernwood’s Leslie Hankel, Victoria Police Department had to provide the defense with transcripts of the interviews of 600 to 800 neighbours. All this takes time and money.)
The Saanich Police did not have it easy! I believe they have gone as far as they can because they cannot force people to talk. Crown has tied their hands. Think about this, Saanich and other municipalities have great difficulty getting a bunch of homeless campers out of local parks. They need a court order to make this happen, how insane is this. Imagine how hard it is to get Crown approval for a murder.
EMAIL ADDRESS: murderondesousa@gmail.com