Webpage visitor notifications
The Murder of Lindsay Buziak

Oct 1/2023 Lindsay Buziak Murder – EMAILS & EVIDENCE OF FOUL PLAY

September 22, 2010

Saanich Police Press Conference

Sgt. Dean Jantzen said that Lindsay Buziak’s boyfriend Jason Zailo and his family have met with police for extensive interviews since a Dateline NBC special on Buziak’s murder aired last week.

“We would like TO state unequivocally that no member of the Zailo family is considered a person of interest or a suspect in this investigation.

“Our detectives are satisfied that the Zailos have no knowledge or any participation in this horrific crime.” Jantzen said the Dateline program also led to speculation about Jason Zailo’s involvement in the murder. “There’s been much in the community, publicly, as far as finger-pointing, rumor, speculating, innuendo in many forms,” Jantzen said. He added that he decided to hold Wednesday’s press conference to debunk those rumors.

Isn’t it somewhat odd that one week earlier the police had announced that they were up against a brick wall, asking for the public’s help, and that’s why they made the decision to go on Dateline to spread a wider net? How often do police, when in the middle of a complex police investigation unequivocally state that anyone close to the victim has “no knowledge or any participation” in a crime? In 2010, they could only have known that if they had solved the crime in its entirety.

After that announcement people were relieved to hear that the entire Zailo family had been cleared.

After all, the Saanich Police said it, so it must be so! With that announcement came the anticipation and strong belief that the Saanich Police were close to making arrests. For if the police can clear certain individuals so early on in a murder investigation, then surely, they had to know who the perpetrators were who conspired to murder Lindsay Buziak. But no arrests came, and the deadly silence fell over the community. This silence led to further speculation – why did the Saanich Police clear the entire Zailo family, was it incompetence or a police strategy perhaps? As time passed, the RCMP became involved in the case, then the FBI, then VIMCU. Yet here we are 15 years later, no arrests, no suspects and no further press conferences.

Who is responsible for all the rumors, speculation, and the multiple blogs where freedom of speech allowed people to speak their mind.

Different police agencies have allowed this to carry on for years, without stepping in to put a stop to it. The Saanich Police have had multiple opportunities to step up to the platform, but they chose to stay silent. As there have been no further press conferences since September 2010, I question what the heck is going on with this investigation?

The Zailo family has been hit hard these past several years, so hard that Shirley Zailo is now at the point of suing a number of individuals who she claims defamed her character. Not only did she go to the Capital Daily News to expose the individuals’ identities, but she also did it with the help of the whistleblower turncoat. Why isn’t she suing the Saanich Police Department for allowing this nightmare to carry on for so long?

I urge the Saanich Police to call another PRESS CONFERENCE immediately. Quell all these rumors, THIS HATE AND ANGER RAGING BETWEEN SO MANY DIFFERENT GROUPS once and for all.

You cleared the Zailo family in 2010, leaving the public to believe you had suspects in your vision and would be doing something very soon. You did nothing! Why, after 15 years have you not called this a cold case? Most cases that have not been solved after this length of time are called “cold” cases”. Why do these police agencies continue to play with the minds of so many people, especially the family & friends of Lindsay Buziak?

Let’s take this back to the headliner story that ran in the Capital Daily News on May 12/2022. It was titled “Father of murdered real estate agent Lindsay Buziak sued for defamation. The journalist who wrote the story was “Zander Sherman.”


We learned at that time, that Shirley Zailo had hired lawyer Michael SCherr of Pearl Lindholm in Victoria

and had filed a civil claim in B.C. Supreme Court on April 25, 2022, alleging she had been defamed by 3 people. She names Jeff Buziak and two alleged regular posters of a website he is associated with. Shirley explains that technological advances are the reason she is finally taking action, saying that the accusations against their family has been damaging. The 2-year limitation period for civil claims in B.C. was extended to 3 years due to the Covid 19 pandemic, meaning that comments as old as 2019 could be included in Shirley’s claim.

Fifteen years of silence by the Zailo family, 1000’s and 1000’s of posts made by 1000’s and 1000’s of different people proclaiming their guilt on multiple platforms. Why has it taken this family15 years to come forward and file lawsuits? Why target only 3 individuals when 1000’s of people have made similar comments on many different blogs? Was this lawsuit initiated in order to draw the public’s attention away from the Lindsay Buziak murder investigation?


In recent court documents Shirley Zailo claims that she was informed by Andrew Edwards, a computer expert at TCS Forensics Limited IN VANCOUVER

and does verily believe the same to be true, that when you visit a website, the site may place a cookie on your device so it can recognize your device in the future. If you return to that site later on, it can read that cookie to remember you from your last visit. and keep track of you over time. Data held inside the cookie is usually specified by the developers of the cookie file, and can include (but not limited to):

A) The device’s Operating System

B) The web browser name which accessed the website.

C) The version of the browser used and/or

Certain details of the device that the web browser was used on.

I am further advised by Andrew Edwards and do verily believe the same to be very true, that on March 7, 2021, posts made by the 3 usernames W, L & D show an originating IP address of for all three of these usernames.

Information regarding the devices used by the defendant, who had access to those devices, her IP service provider, her use and association with the name LA, and her career experience all relate to establishing her as the poster of the defamatory words.


I do not doubt for a moment that Shirley Zailo had conversations with Andrew Edwards of TCS Forensics, however, if you read between the lines, there is nothing to indicate that this firm actually performed an investigation on her behalf and was the one to identify the IP addresses. It is most important to read between the lines, because it is becoming very clear that the Capital Daily News whistle blower turncoat is the one responsible for the IP information landing in the hands of Shirley Zailo. The question begs, how did the whistle blower gain access to IP information that was on the Lindsay Buziak blog?

If this information was obtained illegally by the whistle blower, then she could be looking at a lawsuit coming her way in the very near future. This definitely has to be someone who had access to inside information on the Lindsay Buziak website. On the other hand, there are certain things that are perfectly legal. The public has complete access through BC Online and other sources to such information as title searches, liens, judgements, and personal property searches. Perfectly legal in this province.

Anyone out there currently posting negative comments about the Zailo family on different sites should be extremely careful because the whistleblower is on the loose looking for more names she can turn over to Shirley Zailo.


why did she not pick up the phone, call them, then ask that they please refrain from making further negative posts about her & her family. Why not give them the opportunity to stop what they were “allegedly” doing before suing them? Shirley did not do that, instead she chose to sue their asses off and make it as public as possible. These two posters, along with 100’s of other posters who posted negative comments about the Zailo family, are good honest hard working family people, just doing what they thought was right & perfectly legal. (freedom of speech)

Concerned citizens have already come forward offering to set up a go-fund me page to help towards the expenses that these two women will have to bear. I suspect this will be very successful.

The Plaintiff (Shirley Zailo) commenced proceeding in this matter by filing a notice of civil claim on April 25/2022 against (Defendant #1).

The Plaintiff claims that the defendant, a retired corrections officer, published defamatory comments regarding the plaintiff and others online on a website located at http://www.lindsaybuziakmurder.com. using various fake names. In addition, the plaintiff claims that the defendant published defamatory emails to individuals within the Province of British Columbia.

A trial by jury date is set for 5 days commencing May 27, 2024, in B.C. Supreme Court in Victoria.

On June 8, 2023, at 10:00 AM THE one of the defendants being sued attended an examination for discovery, held in Chilliwack B.C.

The Plaintiff (Shirley Zailo) claims that during the examination, the defendant refused to answer the questions set out in Schedule “A”. Without answers to proper questions the plaintiff cannot properly pursue the action.

As the plaintiff (Shirley Zailo) was not successful in getting the answers to “all the questions” she has submitted an invoice for her costs, saying all these costs have been thrown away as the result of the defendant’s conduct. She is claiming $1782. in personal expenses, for hotel, ferry, gas etc, plus tariffs for a total of $3014.23.

Due to this “unsuccessful examination for discovery,” the plaintiff (Shirley Zailo) has now requested a further examination for discover at a date and time set by the Plaintiff. The date is set for September 26, 2023, and is to be held in the Victoria supreme courts. The further examination will be a continuance of the examination already conducted, with the plaintiff’s counsel entitled to answer to the questions as set out in the attached Schedule “A” and the right to continue the defendant’s examination for discovery generally.

ON OCTOBER 26, a Victoria Supreme Court judge ruled that the defendant must pay $3014.23 to Shirley Zailo. How can a judge make such a ruling when he doesn’t have all the facts. Perhaps some of the questions could not be answered at discovery, because the defendant didn’t know the answers.

If the defendant is found innocent at trial, will Shirley Zailo be obligated to return the $3014.23 back to the defendant? A 2nd examination for discovery did not happen on September 26th, nor was a new date set. However, it will likely happen in the next 30-60 days.


The defendant failed to produce all documents relevant and within her possession and control of relating to the matters in question in the action as required by Rule 7-2 (16)

The documents sought by the plaintiff (Shirley Zailo) could be used at trial to prove or disprove a material fact and are relevant to the proceedings.

Both the plaintiff and defendant have alleged facts that support this conclusion.

All the information requests made of the defendant that are outstanding are within her knowledge as means of knowledge relating to a matter in question in the action, and in respect of which no privilege has been asserted, as required by Rule 7-2 (18).


Rule 7-2 (25) states that, if a person under examination objects to answering a question put to him or her, the question and the objection must be taken down by the official reporter and the court may decide the validity of the objection and order the person to submit to further examination.

The Plaintiff claims that the defendant refused to answer questions 66, 282-284, 286, 291-296, 299, 303, 309 and 317 on the grounds that she had no legal representation. This is not valid objection.

The defendant had the opportunity to seek legal representation. Her choice to forego does not exempt her from answering proper questions put to her during her examination for discovery.

The defendant refused to answer questions 280-281 on the ground that the line of questioning is for trial not for discovery.

The defendant refused to answer question 395 on the basis that it was part of her defense at trial. This is not a valid objection.

Questions 351, 360-361 and 413-423 relate to improper disclosure of document discovery which the defendant refused to answer on the grounds of privilege.

THERE IS SUFFIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE CAPITAL DAILY NEWS WHISTLE BLOWER TURNCOAT is the person who actually gave Shirley Zailo the real identities of two people who made posts on the Lindsay Buziak website. If the IP addresses of the two women being sued were given to Shirley by the administrator of the Lindsay blog, is that legal? Of course not. However, we know perfectly well that the administrator of the site would never have released IP information to Shirley Zailo. It appears that the Capital Daily whistle blower obtained the IP address information illegally, and because of this, a new lawsuit is pending.

The whistle blower was a regular poster on the Lindsay blog for 6 years, and never once made a post in support of the Zailos. The whistleblower now she sits back with fluffed up peacock feathers, exposing other posters for doing the exact same thing she did for all those years.

This was a post made by Garry Rodgers on March 9, 2019, a post that was later removed from his website.

People who are part of a conspiracy to kill usually protect others in the know— unless they’re not true family members. Then, blood isn’t thicker than water, and this applies to someone in the Delacazar/Zailo network who remain in the police prime suspect group. Eventually, someone in this conspiracy will turn on others. That’s guaranteed. But here’s something else guaranteed, who goes first gets the lightest sentence… and witness protection.

When & why did Mr. Rodgers remove the above post? Was it right after he became good friends with Shirley Zailo?


Exclusion of Evidence – Section 24 (2)

2) Where, in proceedings under section (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.



There are a number of new developments in DNA examinations for policing investigations in murders and other crimes. Some of the most notable include:

Massively parallel sequencing (MPS): This technology allows scientists to quickly and accurately sequence large amounts of DNA, which can be used to identify suspects or victims even when there is only a small amount of DNA evidence available.

Forensic DNA phenotyping: This technique uses DNA analysis to predict an individual’s physical characteristics, such as eye color, hair color, and skin color. This information can be used to narrow down the pool of potential suspects or to identify unidentified remains.

Familial searching: This technique allows law enforcement to search DNA databases for relatives of a suspect, even if the suspect’s DNA is not in the database. This can be a valuable tool for identifying suspects in cold cases or cases where the suspect is unknown.

Low copy number (LCN) analysis: This technique allows scientists to analyze DNA samples that contain very little DNA. This can be useful for analyzing samples from crime scenes where there is only a small amount of DNA evidence available.

DNA methylation analysis: This technique can be used to estimate the age of DNA evidence. This information can be helpful in determining the timeframe of a crime.

These are just a few of the many new developments in DNA examinations for policing investigations. These techniques are constantly being improved, and they are becoming increasingly powerful tools for solving crimes.

In addition to these technological advances, there are also a number of new legal and ethical issues that are arising in the field of DNA testing. For example, there is debate about the use of familial searching, and there are concerns about the privacy of DNA databases. These issues are complex and there is no easy answer, but they are important to consider as DNA testing becomes more widespread.

Overall, the field of DNA testing is rapidly evolving, and it is becoming an increasingly important tool for solving crimes.


Sept 23/2020, October 16/2020, Feb 24/2021, March 4/2021, March 8/2021, March 9/2021, March 11/2021, June 14, 2021 etc.

EMAIL ADDRESS: murderondesousa@gmail.com

%d bloggers like this: