Monday 14 August 2017

Killer murdered three victims                                 

The knife that killed Hanne Meketech, Terry Blanchette and Hailey Dunbar-Blanchette cut in many ways, ultimately causing grave injury to an entire community. After the discovery of Hanne's horrific murder, , the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officers began to descend upon the small mountain community of Coleman, Alberta, to try and solve the case. From the discovery of Hanne's body on September 9th, 2015 to that of Terry's on September 14th, 2015, the entire area of the Crowsnest Pass was on edge. And then there was the third horror and society’s worst fear—a missing child. The discovery of Terry's lifeless body and Hailey's disappearance initiated an Amber Alert. One hundred police officers were involved in the case. Hailey’s face, beautiful and innocent, was all over the news. To learn her gruesome fate had been devastating. The child had been strangled and cut into pieces. 

A jury had convicted Mr. Derek Saretzky of first degree murder in the killing of Hanne Meketech, the killing of Terry Blanchette, and the killing of Hailey Dunbar-Blanchette. The jury also convicted him of offering an indignity to Hailey’s remains.   

As part of the sentencing process, individuals impacted by these offences were entitled to submit statements about the effect these crimes have had upon them. The trial judge reviewed and considered those statements for sentencing purposes and highlighted some of the more salient features.

Mr. Saretzky gave a confession about the murders of Terry and Hailey to Melisa Eye, who was a correctional peace officer at the Calgary Remand Centre at the time.
 

Melisa Eye has found herself continually replaying the crime over and over, and tried to drive images of the scene out of her head by using the Internet to seek out pictures of Hailey smiling. She found it increasingly more difficult when having to repeat her discussion with Mr. Saretzky over and over, and sought counselling because of the stress this situation had caused her. Many of the victims also expressed sorrow and kindness towards the Saretzky family. 
  

Section 718 of the Criminal Code sets out the fundamental purpose of sentencing as the protection of society and respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:      
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct; (b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community. 

Relevant to the sentencing of  Mr. Saretzky were two additional Criminal Code provisions dealing specifically with cumulative punishments.     
 

Section 718.3(4)(b)(i) provides that where offences do not arise out of the same event or series of events, a sentencing judge shall consider imposing consecutive as opposed to concurrent terms of imprisonment.     
 

Since the deaths of Hanne Meketech, Terry Blanchette and Hailey Dunbar-Blanchette occurred at three distinct times and at three separate locations, the judge ruled them to be three separate and distinct events. However, in consideration of section 745.51 of the Criminal Code, little turned on this ruling in this particular case.
 

In 2011, the Criminal Code was amended and section 745.21 and 745.51 were added. Under section745.21, where a jury finds an accused guilty of murder and that accused has previously been convicted of murder, the judge presiding at the trial shall ask the jury for its recommendation concerning the period without eligibility for parole to be served and whether these periods should run consecutively. The section provides that where a jury chooses to make such recommendation, then this will be considered by the Court in sentencing. 

Under section 745.51(1): states that “at the time of the sentencing under section 745 of an offender who is convicted of murder and who has already been convicted of one or more other murders”, the Court may, “having regard to the character of the offender, the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission, and the recommendation (by the jury) if any, made pursuant to section 745.21, by order, decide that the periods without eligibility for parole for each murder conviction are to be served consecutively”. 

 Pursuant to section 745.21, the jury that convicted Mr. Saretzky is entitled to make a recommendation about whether the periods of parole ineligibility for the murders of Hailey and Hanne should be consecutive or concurrent to the period of parole ineligibility for the murder of Terry. This is a significant decision. If all concurrent, then Mr. Saretzky would be eligible for parole after 25 years. If all consecutive, he will not be eligible for parole for 75 years. This period of parole ineligibility commences on the date of arrest. Therefore, after 75 years, Mr. Saretzky would be almost 100 years old, nearly guaranteeing he will spend the rest of his life in prison. 

The measures proposed in Bill C-48 will accomplish three things. First, they will better reflect the tragedy of multiple murders by enabling a judge to acknowledge each and every life lost.
 

Under previous law, multiple murderers serve life sentences and corresponding parole ineligibility periods for each murder concurrently. The result is that they serve only 25 years in custody before being eligible for parole, no matter how many lives they may have taken. 

Clifford Olsen killed ten young persons and was sentenced to life without eligibility for parole until he served a minimum of 25 years in prison. After he served 25 years, his parole application was denied. He eventually died in prison.
 

This symbolic devaluation of the lives of victims has a strong negative impact on the families and loved ones of murder victims. All too often they experience a greater degree of pain and experience a greater sense of loss because the justice system has failed to mete out a specific punishment for each and every life lost. Bill C-48 would help correct this.

 The second thing that Bill C-48 would do is reinforce the denunciatory and retributive functions of the parole ineligibility period attached to a sentence of life imprisonment. 

Murder is the most serious crime and must be denounced in the strongest terms. This has already been recognized by the highest court of the land. In the 1987 Vaillancourt case, the Supreme Court of Canada highlighted the extreme stigma attached to murder that flows from the moral blameworthiness of deliberately taking the life of another person. 

Bill C-48 would ensure that our communities are safe and that offenders convicted of multiple murders, who should never be released, will never be released. Alas, despite the penalties for murder, that crime is still committed in Canada.
 

In this vein, the proposed amendments would also protect the families and loved ones of multiple murder victims, who are forced to listen all over again to the details of these horrible crimes at parole hearings held after the maximum parole ineligibility period possible under the current Act expires. 


In the judge’s ruling he stated; “ For each conviction of first degree murder, Mr. Saretzky’s sentence is life imprisonment, with no chance of parole for 25 years. Given the jury’s verdict, they clearly accepted that all three murders were planned and deliberate. For Hailey's murder, they may have also found that her murder occurred in the course of her kidnapping and forcible confinement, which would also ground a conviction for first degree murder. I accept and agree with these findings. I also find that Hanne and Terry were killed by a combination of blunt and sharp force trauma, and that Hailey was killed by strangulation.” unquote
 

T

he judge also said, “The jury saw graphic photos, listened to heart-wrenching testimony, and overall, has been through an incredible ordeal. I watched them closely. And I commend each of them for their conduct in this case. They never disengaged. They paid close attention to the evidence, the arguments of counsel, and the instructions given to them. I believe they took their obligation seriously, and that they put their personal biases and emotions aside to carefully consider the issues.” unquote
 


He also said, “In addition to a finding of guilt on three counts of first degree murder, the jury also returned a unanimous decision that the parole ineligibility for the murders of Hailey and Hanne both be served consecutively to the period of parole ineligibility for the murder of Terry. In other words, the jury unanimously recommended that Mr. Saretzky have no chance of parole for 75 years. This recommendation did not have to be unanimous but all 12 jurors came to this conclusion. This recommendation is not binding upon me, but it was a factor I was obligated to take into account in my decision.” unquote 


He then said, “I agree with the jury’s recommendation that Mr. Saretzky should be imprisoned for 75 years without chance of parole. I agree with the jury’s recommendation that the periods of parole ineligibility for the murders of Hailey and Hanne should be served consecutively to the period of parole ineligibility for Terry’s murder.” unquote
 

What was greatly, disturbing, is that after . Saretzky killed Hanne, he had time to consider his future actions. These murders were not conducted simultaneously. Mr. Saretzky had days, and days, to think about what he had done, and to abandon his continued plans of murder. Instead, he did not. Instead, he used what he learned from conducting each murder to successfully engage in other vicious acts of murder for all his victims which was much more aggravating for Hailey.


In a case such as this, where an individual is being given a sentence which spans a lifetime, the proportionality of the sentence must be heavily weighed.
 

Pursuant to section 724(2)(b) of the Criminal Code, the Court shall accept all facts essential to the jury’s guilty verdict as proven, and that further, it is open to the Court to find any other relevant fact proven by evidence.
 

In this case the Crown (prosecutor) argued that there were facts relevant to the degree of planning and deliberation on the part of Mr. Saretzky. These facts amount to aggravating factors for sentencing purposes such that they demonstrate the extent, as the Crown says, of Mr. Saretzky’s lack of remorse, his diabolical nature, his tendency towards violence, his disregard for human life or its value, and in effect the risk his freedom presents to Canadians and others.
   


A notebook belonging to Mr. Saretzky, was entered into evidence, in which each victim’s name was written and then crossed out. This by itself means that he was methodical in his murders.
 

Similarities between the deaths of Hanne Meketech and Terry Blanchette, included breaking into each of their homes at night, masked and with gloves on, the victims’ state of vulnerability at the times they were attacked in their own bedrooms, and the tools and weapons used to cause their deaths.  


The fact of Mr. Saretzky’s attendance at the Grassy Mountain Road campsite on September 9, 2015, was just five days before he attended this place to murder Hailey. On this September 9th  visit he, as anyone else, would have noted the privacy of the place, the fire pit and abundance of available firewood, which ultimately aided him in committing his crime undetected, to destroy evidence, and to desecrate the remains of Hailey. 


The fact that five full days passed between the murder of Hanne and that of Terry and Hailey. For these five days Mr. Saretzky would have been surrounded by the grief and terror of his entire community, and in particular the horror of his own grandparents who were friends of Hanne. The reality of the hurt and fear he had caused did not stop him from going further in his murders.


The fact that Hailey was only  a 2 year old who was stolen from sleep in her crib, kidnapped from her home, her father murdered, and held hostage before being savagely murdered, and her remains violated and destroyed.
 


Finally, the fact that the gravity of  Saretzky’s actions increased with each of the murders he committed before he was caught. First, cutting the throat of a woman alone and vulnerable in her room at night; then bludgeoning and stabbing a man asleep in his own bed and attempting to drain and drink his blood; and finally, removing a child from her home and holding her hostage before strangling her in a remote location, and then cannibalizing her remains before burning them. As he carried out these three murders Mr. Saretzky gained momentum. This is obvious evidence that this killer was horrible human monster.
 

In these extreme circumstances there is overwhelming evidence that Saretzky is a deadly harm to his community. Hopes of rehabilitating Saretzky can simply not carry the day where the objectives of denunciation; deterrence; the need to separate the offender from society; and the need for reparation for and acknowledgement of harm done to victims and community are all so acutely engaged.
 

It is unfortunate indeed that this monster couldn’t be put to death. It would save the taxpayers in Canada millions of dollars keeping this monster caged for at least 75 years.
 

There was a killer in the United States who killed a couple and later a fellow inmate in prison. He was sentenced to a thousand years for each of the three murders. He appealed and the appeal court agreed with him that a sentence of 3000 years was outrageous. He won his appeal. The appeal court reduced his sentence to 1,500 years. 

No comments: