Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
For anybody who is reading Alex's thread, I am posting something I finally figured out about Meades Drug Store:  the reason I could never find out any information about its exact location in reference to where the murder occurred at The Weir, is because all these years I was searching for Meads/Meades Drugstore in Saskatoon.... and could never find it.  Now that I've been on a roll this week, I finally zeroed in on its location (in 1962) ... I think.  take notice of the photo below of Meades original Drug Store in 1954 ... it is the exact same address. .. also a pic of the outside same year - 1953  So "bingo" on that!
It is a Meades Drug Mart on the corner of 7th street (although called Shoppers Drugmart).... and it even still has a post office; so I think that's the one Alex mailed her letters at back in 1962.  Therefore; I decided to trace the shortest "walk" she might have taken to The Weir.  Turns out it is a ten minute walk.  So I am showing the ad for Meades Drug Mart and also the google link I used to trace the steps and distance.  If you click on the google link, you will see the steps show up as tiny blue dots.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.1476979,-106.6577679,1822m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en-US

and Meades Drug Mart Ad  https://www1.shoppersdrugmart.ca/en/store-locator/store/412
13
page 24.... and whatta ya know?  Baba, at that point reached a realization about time of death and why it was probably dictated:

Quote
Thanks Cape, sorry I haven't been on for  'a' while....

Something else cropped up in my research...the time of death. Although, I am not trying to discredit the coroner...but by the time they had found her body....they all ready knew what she had to eat. So in order not to panic the women of the city and appease the family, I do believe they lied about the contents in her stomach. The Chief of Police would have had something to do with that, but since he has passed away via a heart attack shovelling snow, ...hmm... was it last winter???? Anyways I guess he will never tell...how convenient for the murderer(s).

Although today's forensics will tell you that to be that accurate would not have been very professional on the coroner's part! Well forensic science has come along way since then! Therefore, due to forensic science, there has a lot of scientific variables and/or factors that have to be taken into account before an accurate time of death could have been pinpointed. Therefore, she may have been alive for some time, before she was murdered! Since her body was discovered so much later than her disappearance or death, it was very bold of this coroner to make such a statement!

Seems to be all neat and tidy....doesn't it!
14
Sorry for "replying to my own posts";  just laying out new thoughts as I have started reading this whole thread again. 

Adrian...

Thank You ....

The family was not invited to the coroners inquest. We have asked, and we are not sure why.

So the description of what happened, is what we have collected from the newspaper reports, etc. All I have read and concluded was that there could have been a possibility that someone said they were going to meet her there. When that person did not show up, she went to go home. Was it a lure???? We are not sure.

Was she killed the same night? We are not sure.

Forensic phsychology, what we get off of television would indicate because her face was destroyed, this  person knew her. By the force of the blows, this person/s was very angry at her.

I do not know if she was strangled, she was raped, crushed by a concrete construction block, and died from sand being in her wind pipe. We believe she reached up through her shallow grave for one last attempt for help, or for someone to find her with her outstretched hand. Whether this is all of it, we are not sure.

I do believe, because of what Alexandra believed in. I believe Alexandra would have fought off her attacker/s the best she could, because she was not going to be raped if she could help it. Alexandra's courage, I am sure angered the perpetrator/s, that is why I believe she was raped after he/they crushed her with the concrete block. This person/s raped a dying woman and had to look at her crushed body while doing this, meaning that this person/s was obsessed, was demented, very disturbed, whatever you want to call it. A sicko!

One thing that keeps popping in my mind, that she was lured there that night.

- Unless Alex was in the habit of wandering to the weir on such an inviting night (one will never know at this point) I too, feel she was there for a purpose.  ... to meet up with someone pre-arranged... not necessarily knowing them well, maybe just a "get acquainted in a place she considered safe and tasteful?"

- or she knew the person already?

- or somebody else came instead - knowing she would be there alone waiting?  a messenger? a jealous guy who knew the guy she was meeting wouldn't be showing up?  ... or even worse, a jealous woman interested in, or connected to the guy who wouldn't be showing up -... no text messages back then!  people exchanged notes- or trusted confidants with messages-  .. and it was nothing among little cliques to over-hear something and take the opportunity to "alter the turnout" ... again, a guying bragging he changed his mind about "hooking up" or maybe said he "just couldn't get away" ... creating an opportunity for a deviant person!

- I find myself wondering if they "lay in wait" at the tree line because they were certain she would walk in that direction - which indicates her killer was familiar with her likely-route?  or indicates that might have been a usual path back to her residence, or at least they knew she would head home that way as opposed to the street.
 
- did the killer - become acquainted in minutes, or else already known to her, having exchanged friendly conversation, suggest a little walk when it seemed nobody was looking?

- or, did someone such as Stephen Kozaruck follow her from the drug store, and sit back waiting for the opportune moment?

- Again I wonder if the piece of concrete was considered "belonging to that spot"?

- and was the "grave" intentionally dug?  If not.. and it was dug in haste, how impacted was that ground for digging (was it damp and soft because it was shaded? or would it have been somewhat hard pack from whatever number of days that had dry air and sunshine prior)?
 
- What would the killer have used for digging? If it was soft ground, a stick, piece of board, or branch would do; otherwise some sort of shovel would have been required. I noticed in the crime scene photo, there was what looked like a huge plastic pail incorporated into the ground brush left of the grave.  ... like the fuel and oil cans carried by heavy trucks and equipment on job sites.
 
- Was the "grave" actually just a ditch left by construction there? (If so, whoever did this had to be quite resourceful to find the necessary earth or vegetation compost to cover her over - again suggesting either familiarity with the site, or else, the necessity to return again to do the burying.)

- One can't help but think that Alex might have been abducted that night, and then returned and buried another time or another day.
(If there was tell-tale articles left near or where she was buried, (such as a bottle, eyeglasses, clothing button/s, or whatever a murderer might lose) that would indicate it happened there either all at once, or else in a few visits.  .... if it did take place there, why are her purse and one shoe still missing?  :-\

- If she was killed elsewhere and brought back there for burying, that would explain why her
 hand was still reaching out... fighting ... perhaps that was the case; and because rigor had set in, she had to be buried that way.  If the killer went through all the work of burying her right after he killed her, I would expect he/she/they would have placed her hand flat to get it out of the way and make the work easier.... suggesting that she was either buried alive, still breathing, and with one last spontaneous movement, raised her hand?   

- or left dying in a vehicle, or building, or at least well hidden until the killer/s acquired a shovel ...  by the time, they got all their faculties together, rigor was either partially or completely set in, requiring the concrete block to help flatten the body (or was the block / weapon just thrown in to get it out of sight?

I'm sorry if most of this is repetitive of all the previous pages, but it's just my way of narrowing it down to the initial facts and suppositions:  that way, I don't have to read the whole thread again each time I revisit the thread.

15
I don’t even know for sure there was a third visit, I only remember Dennis’ car was recorded driving past the same place three times. I don’t remember any factual evidence he made three visits. During the police interview, he stated the last time he saw his father he had his back to him and was facing the computer. Then on the stand during the first trial, I believe Dennis stated he made a third visit and the las time he saw his father he was standing beside his assistant’s desk facing him. It crossed my mind the third visit was discussed with his lawyers and this is what was decided for him to say to cover for the ‘had his back to him, facing his computer’ plus adding minutes to the timeline of arriving at the wharf. I also don’t remember if there was a video of Dennis driving along Canterbury street? again after that first one where he parked.

I agree that these lawyers for Dennis have cost the family a very large chunk of money - huge money - but it’s all RO’s money being used to defend Dennis and tax payer money to prosecute Dennis twice.

If I am remembering wrong anyone please correct me. And Baysailor, 😁 brilliant question and a proscutor? 😂

16
Thanks, RubyRose....Hmm. This logbook...jellybean, maybe he already took it with him the second time he left the office...had it in his bag, or left it in his car.  I think he STILL mixed up in his sequence of events..as he is saying he went back the third time for the log book.
I would’ve questioned Dennis as to the exact time that morning he left the log book at his mom’s.

Sorry...but what was Dennis’s original reason for visiting his dad for almost an hour?  There is no way in hell they didn’t have words over money....the trading error and/or Dennis’s debt.
 Speaking of debt, his lawyers must be taking a huge chunk of his (family’s) money.

Don’t “successful” men use briefcases anymore?

Dennis's original stated reason for visiting his father that evening was to discuss some new family genealogy info he had discovered during his recent trip to England. A trip he in no way could afford. 

"Hey Dad, I had great trip to England-  sorry about that interest check that just bounced!"

17
Thanks, RubyRose....Hmm. This logbook...jellybean, maybe he already took it with him the second time he left the office...had it in his bag, or left it in his car.  I think he STILL mixed up in his sequence of events..as he is saying he went back the third time for the log book.
I would’ve questioned Dennis as to the exact time that morning he left the log book at his mom’s.

Sorry...but what was Dennis’s original reason for visiting his dad for almost an hour?  There is no way in hell they didn’t have words over money....the trading error and/or Dennis’s debt.
 Speaking of debt, his lawyers must be taking a huge chunk of his (family’s) money.

Don’t “successful” men use briefcases anymore?


Not so sure how "successful" I'd classify poor Dennis, jobo.  I suppose it depends on the definition. 

In his testimony, Dennis said he dropped the logbook off at 7:00 AM that morning.  I think Mr. Connell's testimony was only to verify that they had spoken on the phone regarding the matter the previous evening.  It does, as well, suggest a reason for the visit in the first place.

The Crown contends the logbook was taken from the office on one of the trips prior to the killing.
18
Thanks, RubyRose....Hmm. This logbook...jellybean, maybe he already took it with him the second time he left the office...had it in his bag, or left it in his car.  I think he STILL mixed up in his sequence of events..as he is saying he went back the third time for the log book.
I would’ve questioned Dennis as to the exact time that morning he left the log book at his mom’s.

Sorry...but what was Dennis’s original reason for visiting his dad for almost an hour?  There is no way in hell they didn’t have words over money....the trading error and/or Dennis’s debt.
 Speaking of debt, his lawyers must be taking a huge chunk of his (family’s) money.

Don’t “successful” men use briefcases anymore?
19
Was Kelly Cook's case ever run through the American trucker/serial killer database? Talk about an exact match for the composite sketch:

https://www.monstersandcritics.com/smallscreen/truck-stop-killer-bruce-mendenhall-is-spotlighted-on-grave-secrets/

If only the log books were available.


20
I’m wondering if the regular dry cleaning process will remove blood spots...without the customer pointing them out to the cleaner.
 I googled the answer...but I still don’t really know.
The blood up Dennis’s cuff is damning, in my opinion.
I also wondered that about the log book.
I can’t get over the fact that Dennis dropped the log book off at his mom’s...but didn’t visit, unless she wasn’t home.
 Not sure if I know when Dennis actually went there.
He owed all that money, but didn’t worry?  I hadn’t heard there had been words over a trading error....Dick must have been fed up with his son’s financial isssues.  Bailing out a 40 something year old child is no fun.

This may answer some of your questions regarding the logbook, jobo, although I don't really see anything new here other than the fact that Mr. Connell was not called as a witness in the first trial.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/dennis-oland-murder-retrial-crime-scene-visit-1.5051212
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10