Dec 21/2021 Circumstantial evidence in the Lindsay Buziak murder case.
Just how much more circumstantial evidence does BC’S Crown Counsel require before they will approve charges in the lindsay buziak murder case?
Circumstantial evidence is evidence of facts that the court can draw conclusions from. It is not necessary that facts be proven by direct evidence. It may also be proved through circumstantial evidence or by a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence. Both are acceptable as a means of proof. Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other. Lies, deception, and misleading police in an investigation could be identified as inferences that someone has knowledge of a crime? Or be involved in a crime.
Following the evidence is the best way to seek the truth. Sometimes inferences can be drawn from lack of evidence as well. Drilling down to the fine details is important.
Friday February 1/2008
At 7:15 Shirley Zailo showed up at the Songhees condo where Jason and Lindsay lived. Jason was not home, he was playing hockey that evening. According to police documents Shirley overheard a 15-minute conversation between Lindsay and the buyer. Therefore, the Saanich Police believe that Lindsay provided the address of the 1702 DeSousa to the buyers during that phone call.
Shirley Zailo is the only person to say that she heard Lindsay give the 1702 DeSousa address to the client. It’s in the police notes, so does this mean that the Saanich Police consider Shirley a reliable witness?
Friday February 1/2008
Jason returns from playing hockey around midnight. Lindsay is still awake and outwardly concerned about showing homes on Saturday night. In an attempt to ease Lindsay’s worries Jason reminds Lindsay about a similar call she had received from a woman a month earlier and that the client’s $900k budget had been almost identical and according to Jason that call had yielded a sale.
This story Jason gave the police was a lie. There was no mysterious out of town buyer that contacted Lindsay a month earlier looking to buy a home in price range of $900K. NO BUYER – NO SALE!
This is in the police notes so does this mean that the Saanich Police believed Jason’s story? Did they ask to see a contract of the purchase and sale for the home Jason was referring to? Wouldn’t the Saanich Police have wanted to speak to the buyer?
Saturday February 2/2008
Jason and Lindsay had a late lunch at Sauce on Wharf Street. They payed the bill at 4:24 then left to go their separate ways. Police documents reveal that Lindsay went home to change and Jason drove to SHC Autographx. Jason told the police that he needed to meet with one of the owners of SHC on a real estate deal. He had to pick up documents from SHC, then go to the DeSousa house where Lindsay would be. According to Jason, Lindsay was involved in the transaction and her signature was needed.
The story Jason gave to the police was a lie. There was no real estate deal that Jason and Lindsay were working on. Therefore Lindsay’s signature was not needed. If fact, there was no reason for Jason to have gone to SHC at 4:30 that afternoon. Could his visit to SHC have been a delay tactic, an excuse to ensure that he would not arrive at the DeSousa property at 5:30?
Did the Saanich Police interview the owners of SHC? Did they ask to see the contract Jason claims he was involved in? Why did a Saanich Police spokesperson make a public statement saying that Jason Zailo went to the DeSousa property because he had papers for Lindsay to sign, then later retract that statement and say that Jason was really going to the house because Lindsay had asked him to be there because she was worried about meeting the buyers alone.
February 2/2008
When Jason Zailo arrived at SHC he parked his Range Rover in a spot where it would be in full view of security cameras. Of course that could have been done unknowingly. Can Jason explain why, when leaving SHC, he went directly to the passenger side of the vehicle, then slowly turned around and walked back to the driver’s side? When doing this, he glanced up, therefore the security cameras would have caught a glimpse of his face. Was Jason’s remote control not working? Did he need to open the door manually before his friend Cohen could get into the passenger seat? In the video it looks as if Jason is putting something into the back seat on the passenger side. If that is what he was doing, does he have an explanation for why he couldn’t have put it into the back seat on the driver’s side of the vehicle?
Did the police question Jason as to why he went to the passenger’s side of the vehicle? Did they ask him what he put in the back seat? As Jason was a frequent visitor to SHC did they ask him if that is where he usually parked his vehicle when visiting SHC Autographx?
February 2/2008
According to the police notes Jason had tried to find the DeSousa address using his navigation system but it wasn’t working. Jason had phoned Lindsay as he was leaving SHC to ask for directions to the house. Lindsay said, I’ve got to go, the Mexicans are here.” (Jason’s own words on Dateline) A few minutes later Lindsay texted the directions to Jason from “inside” the house. At 5:38 Jason texted Lindsay back, I’m just a few minutes away. Why bother texting if you are just a couple of minutes away and why bother if you are going to sit outside and do nothing when you get there? Nothing for 20 minutes!
We know that Jason made a call to his brother Ryan to ask for directions. What time did Jason make a phone call to his brother to ask for directions to the DeSousa property? The time should be after he ended his phone call with Lindsay and before he received Lindsay’s text message giving him the directions to the house. Did the Saanich Police check the time stamp to confirm when Jason made the call to his brother Ryan? Did they compare the time stamp when Lindsay texted him the directions to the house?
There are no plausable explanations for Jason’s actions that night and none of his excuses make any sense.
February 2/2008
In police statements it says that Jason rang the door bell about 10 times. When he got no answer he and his friend Cohen ran around to the side of the house – then to the back. Jason tried to find the basement door but apparently it was too dark? Jason and Cohen returned to the front of the house then peered in the windows. When Jason looked through the frosted glass in the front door he said he could see Lindsay’s shoes in the foyer.
How did Jason know there was a basement? If Jason knew there was a basement, why didn’t he head straight to the basement rather than straight up to the upper level? It is most Interesting that Joe DeSousa left the lights on at the front of the house but not at the back.
February 2/2008
According to a transcribed summary of the 911 call that was mentioned in the police notes Zailo said he had seen two figures through the frosted glass in the front door window. At the time of the murder both Jason and his friend Cohen told the same story. Cohen’s story has never changed but Jason’s has.
How is it then, that years later Jason’s story changed? Now we hear that Jason actually saw the man and woman standing outside the front door – and that when they saw Jason turn into the cul-de-sac they turned around and went back inside. Who’s to say that wasn’t a signal of some sort to Jason? A Saanich police officer told the press that when Jason saw the man and woman standing outside the front door, he assumed the showing was just starting and that was the reason he decided to wait in his vehicle until the showing was over. Did Jason really believe that Lindsay and the clients had been standing outside in the dark, in the cold of night for fifteen minutes? And did Jason not wonder where the woman was? Which story do the police actually believe?
February 2008
The police documents say that Jason willingly gave up Lindsay’s Toshiba laptop when asked. On Lindsay’s laptop they discovered missing chat messages. They noted that from January 24th 2008 to February 3rd 2008 there were no messages from any of Buziak 700 friends on her Facebook wall. The documents say that the police found this odd but they could not determine exactly when the messages had been deleted.
We don’t know exactly when the Saanich Police confiscated Lindsay’s Toshiba laptop but clearly it was in Jason’s possession when they did. How many people had access to her laptop? Only someone with access to her laptop could delete chat messages, however anyone who knew Lindsay’s facebook password could have deleted the facebook messages during the time period the police mentioned. Who could have deleted the messages – definitely someone who had access to Lindsay’s Toshiba. And clearly it was not Lindsay.
February 2/2008
The police documents say that Jason checked Lindsay arm for a pulse and then tried to give her CPR.
Does it make any sense that you would attempt CPR on someone you found lying in a pool of blood with their throat cut?
FEBRUARY 3/2008
SO JASON, WHY DID YOU REFUSE TO GIVE SAANICH POLICE A SAMPLE OF YOUR DNA BEFORE YOU WERE RELEASED FROM THE POLICE STATION THE MORNING AFTER LINDSAY’S MURDER?
Did your high-profile criminal lawyer Bradley Hickford advise you not to give a sample of your DNA? Did your mother advise you not to give a sample of your DNA? Or did you just make this most important decision all on your own? What were you thinking? You had already left your DNA all over the DeSousa house when you touched the front door handle, when you rang the front door bell, when you touched the railing as you ran up the stairs, and of course when you touched Lindsay’s body as she lay on the floor covered in blood.
You obviously knew you contaminating the crime scene, was this on on purpose? Who are you protecting other than yourself? The Saanich Police sealed off your condo for 48 hours after the murder while they searched the place, didn’t they? Without a doubt the investigators would have left your condo with a sample of your DNA. A hair from your hairbrush maybe – a cup you left sitting in the sink, or even in the dishwasher for that matter. Were you concerned that your DNA might link you to another crime? Or that the police might be able to prove familiarity if they could put you in the DeSousa house prior to the night of the murder?
JASON, WHERE WERE YOU AND ZIGGY MATHESON ON AUGUST 30TH 2007
February 3/2008
In the late evening, the day after the murder Jason called his friend Christopher Schwartz to ask if he could come over and talk. Schwartz was a drug trafficker with a lengthy criminal record, and a man who had connections to the HA. When Jason arrived at Chris’s condo him and Chris went outside on the balcony where they could speak in private, away from the person who was inside the condo. Rather than stay home and mourn the loss of his girlfriend, Jason chose to make a visit to a guy who had charges for thefts, assaults and trafficking in narcotics. If his visit to Schwartz’s 4th floor 68 Songhees condo that evening had nothing to do with Lindsay’s murder then what the heck was he even doing there at that time of night?
Jason should have been a prime suspect at that time, and one would think the Saanich Police would have him under surveillance. But did they? Just who’s phone was Jason using when he made that call to Chris Schwartz.
The police had confiscated Jason’s phone prior to him being released that morning. Jason’s mother claims that Jason put Lindsay’s friends numbers into her phone prior to his being released from the police station. Had Jason put Chris Schwartz’s name into Shirley’s phone at the same time? In all likelihood, Jason would have known that his movements were being watched in the days following the murder. Could this visit to Chris Schwartz’s condo have been deliberate to give the appearance that he didn’t know anything and was seeking answers? Perhaps he wasn’t scared/rattled at all, and isn’t it strange that he went to Chris to ask questions rather than to Ziggy. It certainly have established some distance between Jason and Ziggy.
THE FIRST 48 HOURS IN ANY HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION IS CRITICAL AND NOT ALLOWING THE PRIME SUSPECT OF OF THEIR SIGHT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A TOP PRIORITY. If the SAANICH POLICE DID NOT LEARN OF JASON’S VISIT THAT NIGHT UNTIL YEARS LATER, THEY MOST DEFINITELY MISSED A CRITICAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE BEHIND.
February 3/2008
SHIRLEY ZAILO’S PHONE CALL TO LINDSAY’S FRIEND NIKKI the morning after the murder.
Shirley claims that she accidentally called the wrong Nikki, she meant to call Niki, the front end girl that worked in the Re/Max office. It would seem odd if Jason had only put Nikki’s first name and phone number in his mother’s phone, but who knows maybe he did. Still, the office Niki had worked in the Re/Max office for nearly 15 years, so wouldn’t Shirley have noticed that the number was different and that their names were spelled differently?
Why did Nikki say that Shirley spoke with an accent? Why did Shirley hang up on Nikki? Nikki had the good sense to trace the number back, and after numerous tries Shirley answered the phone. Did the Saanich Police question the real motive for Shirley’s call? Did they check Shirley’s phone to see if it was just Nikki’s first name Jason had entered, or had he put in her last name too? Jason would have entered Lindsay’s friends name as Nikki, the admin manager’s name was spelled Niki.
September 17/2010 Dateline NBC Dreamhouse Mystery goes live.
The host Josh Markiewicz asked Jason Zailo, “what did you see when you arrived at the 1702 DeSousa murder house? Jason replied, “I saw shadows through the frosted glass window in the front door”. Josh responds, “How many people did you see?” Jason hesitated then replied, “I saw two people”. No one ever questioned what Jason told Josh that day. But years later Jason’s story changed. He said that when he turned into the cul-de-sac he saw a man and woman standing outside the front door, and when they saw him they turned around and went back inside the house. (Chris Horsley/Crime Watch Daily Show)
Josh said to Jason, “there are people out there that say Lindsay was getting ready to pull the plug and move on. Is there any truth to that?” Jason responded, “there is none, there is no truth to that”. Jason’s mother Shirley told Josh that on the Friday night before the murder her and Lindsay had taken a walk. She said that Lindsay told her that she was afraid of her ex-boyfriend Matt. Josh asked, “what did Lindsay tell you?” Shirley responded, “I can’t really remember, but she said she didn’t like the way Matt had treated her during their relationship”.
CLICK ON THE LINK TO HEAR WHAT MATT MACDUFF HAD TO SAY ON CHEK NEWS BACK IN 2010. NOW THATS A GUY WHO REALLY CARED ABOUT LINDSAY AND WAS NOT AFRAID TO SPEAK OUT. Watch | Facebook
Lindsay shared with family and friends that she was definitely leaving Jason so what Jason told Josh was a lie. Lindsay’s friends and family were shocked to hear Shirley Zailo say what she did, and everyone knew it as a lie. Lindsay was not afraid of Matt MacDuff, in fact, she loved him – she did not fear him. Is this a case of a mother trying to to discredit an innocent man in order to avert suspicion away from her own son?
Sabrina Unke, a longtime friend of Buziak, has also spoken out about the murder in an interview with Vancouver Island’s ‘A’ Channel News. She and two other friends said that the realtor had been talking about breaking up with Zailo months before her death. In 2010, CHEK NEWS spoke with Lindsay’s friend Nikki. Her friend said that just before Christmas 2007, after a girl’s night she and Lindsay returned to the condo Lindsay shared with Jason. Thinking Jason was asleep Lindsay shared with Nikki that she was planning on breaking up with Jason. 6 weeks later Lindsay was dead.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=614690893586
There are no plausable explanations for Jason’s actions the night of the murder and none of his excuses make any sense. Jason’s actions demonstrate his total lack of concern for Lindsay’s safety at a time she needed it the most.
SUSPECT: EDGAR OVIDIO ACEVEDO (Vid)
Vid is a key suspect in this investigation. He is definitely not the killer, but he is allegedly one of the conspirators who was involved in the planning. And you can be damn sure he knows exactly who went into the 1702 DeSousa house that night to murder Lindsay. If the Saanich Police suspect that Leopoldo Rojo Beltran and his sister Hermila were the couple that met Lindsay at the house that night, why are they still living freely in the US? Have they even been questioned? I doubt whether the police will ever be able to break Leo, but what about his sister Hermila? Have either of these two ever been asked to take a polygraph? Perhaps after all this time Leo and Hermila have been eliminated as suspects?
Were Vid Acevedo or his close friend Erickson Delalcazar ever asked to take a polygraph, and if so what were the results? Vid has never worked a day in his life other than to sell drugs on the streets of Victoria. Yes, it’s a lucrative career indeed, which is why Vid is able to travel to Las Vegas, Las Angeles (Disneyland) Croatia, Mexico and Saskatchewan where his sister lives.
VID ACEVEDO – COURT HEARING – MAY 2018
May 2018 – Vid appeared before a Victoria Court judge on charges of uttering threats to cause bodily harm and charges of extortion. Like so many other times before, the charges against Vid were dropped and the case disappeared from the public court records. The guy that Vid had assaulted was his good friend Wayne Kalnciems. Wayne was also a drug dealer, and Vid was his supplier. I guess Wayne couldn’t pay his debt and Vid was just taking care of business. Sadly Wayne passed away the following year.
What was most interesting about that day is that a few of the lawyers in the courtroom nodded and smiled in Vid’s direction. What does this tell us? It tells us that Vid has friends inside the system, and this suggests that some of his drug clients could be lawyers, judges, and crown officials. Could this be why Vid Acevedo remains untouchable?
The Saanich Police likely know that Crown will not approve charges based on circumstantial evidence alone.
That may be the reason why the Crown has never approved charges. It is a sad state of affairs if this is the case. The police need to arrest someone, because if just one suspect was arrested, other suspects would panic and loose lips would not be far behind. As it stands now the conspirators and killers are feeling very comfortable in the knowledge that no one has been held accountable for this heinous crime. Yet the passage of time has not made it any easier on the family and friends who sit back waiting to see justice for Lindsay.
There was a paid informant/potential witness who was murdered in a targeted shooting back in the spring of this year (2021). This guy could have been a witness at trial, but someone made sure that would never happen. Never discount the possibility that there are other key witnesses out there who have information -and are just waiting for their chance to testify in a court of law. In all likelihood, with the way this case is going, there will other witnesses/suspects who will die before this case ever sees the inside of a courtroom. This is just so wrong on so many levels and it is a real travesty of justice.
This is a high profile murder case yet no one is being held accountable. If the Crown insists on waiting until they have a guaranteed 100% win under their belt we can pretty much say good-bye to arrests, charges or convictions in this case. Crown Counsel claims they do not like to waste tax-payer dollars unless they are certain that they can secure a conviction in the courts. Perhaps the responsibility for so many unsolved murders in this province should lie with the Crown. In all but three provinces in this country the police have the authority to lay charges and make arrests. But not in British Columbia.
The notion that one cannot be convicted on circumstantial evidence is false.
Most criminal convictions are based on circumstantial evidence, although it must be adequate to meet established standards of proof. Circumstantial evidence is usually that which suggests a fact by implication or inference. Criminal courts in Canada do allow prosecutors to convict a defendant using just circumstantial evidence. In fact, this evidence is not considered to be inherently any less reliable than direct proof. It is equally admissible in court, and most criminals are convicted based on circumstantial evidence. This is because in many cases criminals do not tell anyone what they are about to do, so there is no one to testify to having direct knowledge of the crime that the accused may be involved in.
In fact, this proof is not considered to be inherently less reliable than direct proof. At one time inferences had to be taken from direct evidence of facts. Today it is now acceptable to pull inferences from circumstantial evidence, based on reasoning and inference drawing through probability. Types of circumstantial evidence includes physical, scientific, human behavior, and indirect witness testimony.
Direct evidence directly links a person to the accused criminal activity.
Circumstantial evidence is not always as strong in proving guilt on its own it is often best served as corroborating evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence of facts that the court can draw conclusions from. There must be a lot of circumstantial evidence accumulated to have real weight.
- There must be more than once circumstance
- The facts from which the inferences ae derived are proven
- The combination of all the circumstances is such to produce a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt
EMAIL ADDRESS: murderondesousa@gmail.com