Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

These cases are suggested by forum members for research and information. Injustice Anywhere has not reviewed the details of each case and does not necessarily endorse any claims made within this section. Cases we currently advocate for can be viewed in the "Injustice Anywhere Featured Cases" section, located in the board index.
Forum rules
These cases are suggested by forum members for research and information. Injustice Anywhere has not reviewed the details of each case and does not necessarily endorse any claims made within this section. Cases we currently advocate for can be viewed in the "Injustice Anywhere Featured Cases" section, located in the board index.

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Chris_Halkides » Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:17 pm

That's what I came to see, too. Lundy and Burns, two people with no prior experience, somehow clean up nearly perfectly. I have to ask, but I think I know the answer. Did they follow up their luminol with any other testing?
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Mediocrates » Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:44 pm

Jeff.Chi wrote:...I am much more inclined to think that they are guilty and should have been convicted. I do understand the problems with the "Mr. Big" investigation, but they both confirmed the motive that was suspected. They did it for money ... I do agree that that the Islamic extremist angle should have been investigated. I don't know why it wasn't. Do we know for sure how angry people were at the the father of the family? Is there any suspects or evidence that points in this direction? Thanks for reading.


Hi, Jeff- good post.

I feel the same way as you do on this one: inclined to think we're looking at Leopold & Loeb meets the Menendez Brothers, but open to the idea that the Islamic extremism angle might have been too easily dismissed in a pre-9/11 world.

That said, I would not be the LEAST bit surprised to find that thorough investigations of the "tips" given the FBI and the RCMP informants regarding a hit on Muslim family would lead right back to the very clever defendants - I'll bet a few calls from a phone booth to a tip line, maybe a few chats with badass muslim illegals at a hookah house, some gangbangers/ dealers, etc., would be enough to 'put the word in the street'.

I can really see these 2 being smart enough to lay down that kind of prep work in advance.

I'm particularly struck by 3 elements of Sebastian's past (about 1 year before the murders):

1) plays a leading role in a HS production of "Rope" (based on the Loeb & Leopold killings);

2) caught in an insurance fraud where attendance AT A MOVIE was part of the staging (!!!); &

3) told a girlfriend (in a non-joking way) that he wanted to try killing someone as he thought he would enjoy it (trial judge said he WOULD have allowed this witness to testify had the prosecution discovered her sooner).
Mediocrates
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:23 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Chris_Halkides » Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:00 pm

Link (The “gangsters” who encouraged Burns and Rafay to indulge in the most pathetic teenage braggadocio I’ve ever witnessed belonged to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.)

Even taken as is, their confessions are not believable. What's more, the description Sebastian offered did not match the facts.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Chris_Halkides » Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:10 pm

Link "In the days following the murders the Bellevue Police Department received three tips through other law enforcement agencies: one from a Constable Gelinas with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), one from an FBI informant, and one from the Intelligence Division of the Seattle Police. These tips were promising. They provided names, addresses, phone numbers, the correct murder weapon and motives. If that wasn’t enough, one tip was received before the murders were committed. The Bellevue Police Department discarded all of these leads, with no justifiable reason for doing so."

The notion that Rafay and Burns themselves planted these tips is pure conjecture, unanchored to any facts known to me. The RCMP and the FBI informants had worked with he police before:

"Was the RCMP informant reliable?
This informant had provided truthful and accurate information to the RCMP in two previous homicides."

"Was the FBI Informant crazy?
This man had previously provided reliable information to the FBI"

"The evidence provided by the FBI Informant and the tip received from the Seattle Police relating to the group Jamaat ul-Fuqra were never heard by the jury. This is because the trial judge ruled this information inadmissible."

"In January of 2003, Riasat Ali Khan - another prominent Muslim who had been a close friend of Atif Rafay’s father - was murdered outside his home in Vancouver, BC"

BTW I provided this link some time ago.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Chris_Halkides » Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:18 pm

link Professor Richard Leo was not allowed to testify, "Instead of allowing this expert testimony, the judge determined that it was “the province of this jury to decide whether or not in their common experience and common sense these statements made by these defendants to those undercover police officers are voluntary or involuntary …” This committee suggests that police officers posing as violent murderers to 19-year-old boys could not possibly be part of the common experience or common sense of any jury, and that is why jurors in this trial and many others are unable to distinguish real confessions from false ones."

This is the same judge who also did not allow information about a radical Islamist group into the trial (see previous post). Some judge.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Chris_Halkides » Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:30 pm

Klonsky "The Burns and Rafay sting alone cost over one million dollars..."

Besides being a firm believer in good forensics, I believe in the GOYAKOD school of police investigations (get off your butt and knock on doors).
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Mediocrates » Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:44 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:link Professor Richard Leo was not allowed to testify, "Instead of allowing this expert testimony, the judge determined that it was “the province of this jury to decide whether or not in their common experience and common sense these statements made by these defendants to those undercover police officers are voluntary or involuntary …” This committee suggests that police officers posing as violent murderers to 19-year-old boys could not possibly be part of the common experience or common sense of any jury, and that is why jurors in this trial and many others are unable to distinguish real confessions from false ones."

This is the same judge who also did not allow information about a radical Islamist group into the trial (see previous post). Some judge.


On the contrary, I think it is well within the "common experience and common sense" of most folks to be able to surmise that an Ivy League science student, from a good family in the burbs, with no priors and over $300K in his pocket would not ordinarily need or desire work in the world of violent crime, much less confess to bashing his whole family to death with a baseball bat in order to secure such a gig, unless there was something very, very wrong with him that has nothing to do with these (pretty mild) police tricks (no one put a gun to their heads, strung them out on drugs, threatened their families, etc.).
Mediocrates
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:23 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Mediocrates » Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:02 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:Klonsky "The Burns and Rafay sting alone cost over one million dollars..."

Besides being a firm believer in good forensics, I believe in the GOYAKOD school of police investigations (get off your butt and knock on doors).


Why?!

"Knocking on doors" leads to the kind of evidence that you, in particular, have rejected as 'woefully lacking in probative value' (ear & eyewitness accounts, lies to police, failed alibis, prior bad acts, etc.).

Indeed you seem to be suffering from a uniquely virulent case of the "CSI Effect": not only do you reject any and all evidence that is not amenable to testing in a forensics lab, you reject any and all evidence emanating from a forensics lab if there is even a tiny possibility of error.
Mediocrates
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:23 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Mediocrates » Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:23 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:"The evidence provided by the FBI Informant and the tip received from the Seattle Police relating to the group Jamaat ul-Fuqra were never heard by the jury. This is because the trial judge ruled this information inadmissible."


Inadmissible?

ON WHAT GROUNDS?

It was nothing but hearsay???

(Don't tell me you're all for the rule against hearsay when it benefits an accused but not when it benefits the people/state!)

Why didn't their Ivy League-educated defense lawyers chase down those leads, establish a foundation, find out who said what to whom, and subpoena the right people?! (Sure, the system is slanted in the defendants' favor so they don't HAVE to take on that burden, but the best defense is a GREAT offense ... something they desperately needed after effectively hanging themselves with THEIR OWN WORDS & ACTIONS.)

______

I'm STILL not hearing any good explanation for Sebastian's claim that he, a Canadian, HAD to turn to crime because he 'could not go to university or get a job' in the year that followed the murders.

This makes no sense: he was NOT charged; his best pal, Atif, was loaded with over $300K; his own parents seemed to be middle-class comfortable; and tuition in Canada is taxpayer subsidized/ very cheap compared to US schools - surely he could have rounded up the means to attend classes rather than commit crimes. Further, admission would be based on grades in high school not bad press about suspicions (indeed, was his name even mentioned in Canadian news reports prior to his arrest a year later?!).

Everyone just glosses over HIS CHOICE (crime over school) in their hurry to denounce the Mr. Big tactic, but I still submit that the tactic would generally not work on innocent/ non-homicidal/ non-disordered/ college-age kids from good families in the burbs, with bright minds and good prospects.

I have not read or heard anyone suggesting that he had a bad drug habit ... that leaves me leaning toward the judge's conclusion: SB = an "amoral" sociopath, just looking for ego-boosting thrills & shortcuts via crime, lies, and generally playing the rest of us for fools - after all, he is "one of the smartest people ON THE PLANET", just ask him! :facepalm:
Mediocrates
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:23 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Chris_Halkides » Fri Oct 20, 2017 8:23 am

link "(CBS) Det. Thompson's gut told him that the boys were guilty, but he just didn't have the evidence to prove it. Investigators kept combing the house. They found no forced entry. However, there was an eerie forensic tool - luminol - that showed an enormous amount of blood on the shower walls. The killer had used the shower before leaving."

This is warmed over bologna on two grounds. One, luminol detects the possibility of blood, but it also reacts with other substances (it gives false positives). Without a confirmatory test, no conclusion should be drawn. Luminol spread out over a large area (which may be what was the case here) doesn't tell one much about how much blood was present. Photos would be somewhat helpful. As for Det. Thompson's gut, I think that this passage inadvertently reveals how this investigation (and I use that term loosely) got wrapped around the axle.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby charlie_wilkes » Fri Oct 20, 2017 8:31 am

Infallible Blue Loony-nol, the policeman's friend! Evidence that glows in the dark, whenever and wherever you need it!
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 2027
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Chris_Halkides » Fri Oct 20, 2017 8:38 am

Mediocrates wrote:
Chris_Halkides wrote:Klonsky "The Burns and Rafay sting alone cost over one million dollars..."

Besides being a firm believer in good forensics, I believe in the GOYAKOD school of police investigations (get off your butt and knock on doors).


Why?!

"Knocking on doors" leads to the kind of evidence that you, in particular, have rejected as 'woefully lacking in probative value' (ear & eyewitness accounts, lies to police, failed alibis, prior bad acts, etc.).

Indeed you seem to be suffering from a uniquely virulent case of the "CSI Effect": not only do you reject any and all evidence that is not amenable to testing in a forensics lab, you reject any and all evidence emanating from a forensics lab if there is even a tiny possibility of error.

Nonsense. What produces false witness testimony, false confessions, and phony breaking of alibis, are interrogation tactics that feed information, cajole the witness or suspect, or threaten the witness or suspect. In both Lundy and Rafay/Burns the problem started with tunnel vision that blocked out the ability of the police to see the obvious. Not sure where the rest of your ideas come from, nor do I see any reason why I should care. If that sort of blather is all you have to contribute here, I wish that you would go trolling somewhere else.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Chris_Halkides » Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:12 am

charlie_wilkes wrote:Infallible Blue Loony-nol, the policeman's friend! Evidence that glows in the dark, whenever and wherever you need it!

And, as the Russ Faria case showed, sometimes it even "glows" when photographs show that it didn't.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Chris_Halkides » Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:05 pm

Mediocrates wrote:
Chris_Halkides wrote:"The evidence provided by the FBI Informant and the tip received from the Seattle Police relating to the group Jamaat ul-Fuqra were never heard by the jury. This is because the trial judge ruled this information inadmissible."


Inadmissible?

ON WHAT GROUNDS?

It was nothing but hearsay???

(Don't tell me you're all for the rule against hearsay when it benefits an accused but not when it benefits the people/state!)



Please stop making stuff up and start reading the links you were given so that you could educate yourself on this case. The judge did not say that it was hearsay.

[Start quote]
Here is the trial judge’s justification for not allowing the evidence from the FBI Informant:
“It just simply would require too much speculation, I guess, as the cases indicate, as to motive, opportunity, and connection, and it - well, I guess that is about all I can say in that analysis.
There doesn’t seem to be any motive - well, no, that’s not true. The motive would be the disagreement over religious interpretations of the Koran would be as the motives urged by this court. Much beyond that, I simply can’t satisfy any of the other criteria …”

SNIP

Judge Mertel’s rulings are not only incoherent, they are deeply troubling. In order for other suspects’ evidence to be admitted into trial, the defendant must show that some specific individual had: 1. “a motive for committing the crime”, 2. “the opportunity to do so”, and 3. “some connection with the crime”. As the judge reluctantly agreed, “motive” was clearly established by the FBI Informant as religious. Furthermore, “connection with this crime” was also clearly established by the FBI Informant’s knowledge of the murder weapon. As for opportunity, it can only be firmly established by the police, who can arrest suspects, interview witnesses and conduct analyses of the physical and circumstantial evidence. In this case, the police did not even contact the individuals the FBI Informant had named. Why did the trial judge allow the Bellevue investigators’ gross incompetence to benefit the prosecution?
[end quote]
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Chris_Halkides » Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:05 pm

Mediocrates wrote:
Chris_Halkides wrote:"The evidence provided by the FBI Informant and the tip received from the Seattle Police relating to the group Jamaat ul-Fuqra were never heard by the jury. This is because the trial judge ruled this information inadmissible."


Inadmissible?

ON WHAT GROUNDS?

It was nothing but hearsay???

(Don't tell me you're all for the rule against hearsay when it benefits an accused but not when it benefits the people/state!)



Please stop making stuff up and start reading the links you were given so that you could educate yourself on this case. The judge did not say that it was hearsay. See for yourself

[Start quote]
Here is the trial judge’s justification for not allowing the evidence from the FBI Informant:
“It just simply would require too much speculation, I guess, as the cases indicate, as to motive, opportunity, and connection, and it - well, I guess that is about all I can say in that analysis.
There doesn’t seem to be any motive - well, no, that’s not true. The motive would be the disagreement over religious interpretations of the Koran would be as the motives urged by this court. Much beyond that, I simply can’t satisfy any of the other criteria …”

SNIP

Judge Mertel’s rulings are not only incoherent, they are deeply troubling. In order for other suspects’ evidence to be admitted into trial, the defendant must show that some specific individual had: 1. “a motive for committing the crime”, 2. “the opportunity to do so”, and 3. “some connection with the crime”. As the judge reluctantly agreed, “motive” was clearly established by the FBI Informant as religious. Furthermore, “connection with this crime” was also clearly established by the FBI Informant’s knowledge of the murder weapon. As for opportunity, it can only be firmly established by the police, who can arrest suspects, interview witnesses and conduct analyses of the physical and circumstantial evidence. In this case, the police did not even contact the individuals the FBI Informant had named. Why did the trial judge allow the Bellevue investigators’ gross incompetence to benefit the prosecution?
[end quote]
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Chris_Halkides » Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:13 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:Link (The “gangsters” who encouraged Burns and Rafay to indulge in the most pathetic teenage braggadocio I’ve ever witnessed belonged to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.)

Even taken as is, their confessions are not believable. What's more, the description Sebastian offered did not match the facts.


Let's explore this a bit more:

[start quote]
These confessions and the statements provided by Jimmy Miyoshi are not merely unreliable, having been coerced by threats and promises. These confessions are false.

How do we know these confessions are false? They are proven false beyond a reasonable doubt because every material element of the confessions is refuted by the evidence obtained by the state. The material elements determined by the state’s own experts (arrived at both during the investigation and in trial) that do not match the confessions include:

The number of killers (state’s expert concluded at least 3 killers);
The identity of a murder weapon (wounds on Dr. Rafay’s neck show a sharp object was used in the attack);
The timing of the murders (two independent witnesses confirm the murders were definitely over by 10:15 p.m.);
The use of gloves (state’s expert said in a pre-trial interview that he would have found glove marks at the scene if gloves were used—he didn’t find any);
Details of Basma Rafay’s attack (state’s expert concluded Basma moved from her bed to the floor—she never walked around as the newspaper reports and later the confessions claimed);
Movement of the murderers in the house (blood evidence shows the killers were in the garage).

SNIP

These “confessions” are false by definition: they are inconsistent with the facts of the case—facts that were determined by the prosecution’s own experts. But the manner in which Sebastian Burns and Atif Rafay told these stories also tells us they are false: each boy’s confession is internally inconsistent and each contradicts the other’s confession regarding what Sebastian was wearing, what they did with the incriminating evidence and where they obtained the murder weapon. Sebastian Burns and Atif Rafay couldn’t keep their stories straight.

Even more importantly, these “confessions” do not contain any additional information that only the killers could know.

[end quote]
Link
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Mediocrates » Sat Oct 21, 2017 5:41 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:
Mediocrates wrote:
Chris_Halkides wrote:"The evidence provided by the FBI Informant and the tip received from the Seattle Police relating to the group Jamaat ul-Fuqra were never heard by the jury. This is because the trial judge ruled this information inadmissible."


Inadmissible?

ON WHAT GROUNDS?

It was nothing but hearsay???

(Don't tell me you're all for the rule against hearsay when it benefits an accused but not when it benefits the people/state!)



Please stop making stuff up and start reading the links you were given so that you could educate yourself on this case. The judge did not say that it was hearsay. See for yourself

[Start quote]
Here is the trial judge’s justification for not allowing the evidence from the FBI Informant:
“It just simply would require too much speculation, I guess, as the cases indicate, as to motive, opportunity, and connection, and it - well, I guess that is about all I can say in that analysis.
There doesn’t seem to be any motive - well, no, that’s not true. The motive would be the disagreement over religious interpretations of the Koran would be as the motives urged by this court. Much beyond that, I simply can’t satisfy any of the other criteria …”

SNIP

Judge Mertel’s rulings are not only incoherent, they are deeply troubling. In order for other suspects’ evidence to be admitted into trial, the defendant must show that some specific individual had: 1. “a motive for committing the crime”, 2. “the opportunity to do so”, and 3. “some connection with the crime”. As the judge reluctantly agreed, “motive” was clearly established by the FBI Informant as religious. Furthermore, “connection with this crime” was also clearly established by the FBI Informant’s knowledge of the murder weapon. As for opportunity, it can only be firmly established by the police, who can arrest suspects, interview witnesses and conduct analyses of the physical and circumstantial evidence. In this case, the police did not even contact the individuals the FBI Informant had named. Why did the trial judge allow the Bellevue investigators’ gross incompetence to benefit the prosecution?
[end quote]


I'm not "making stuff up", I'm asking questions (that's why my sentences ended with question marks).

But thank you, Professor, for the quotation.

Now I have to ask: why didn't the defense dig deeper, so as to establish "some connection with the crime"? They, too, had subpoena power and could, therefore, compel witnesses to testify on pain of penalty of perjury.

(sure, the system is slanted in favor of the defendants to such an extreme that they do not HAVE to do this, but, if it had panned out ... and, realistically, they needed something HUGE after hanging themselves with THEIR OWN WORDS & ACTIONS)
Mediocrates
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:23 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Mediocrates » Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:25 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:
Mediocrates wrote:
Chris_Halkides wrote:Klonsky "The Burns and Rafay sting alone cost over one million dollars..."

Besides being a firm believer in good forensics, I believe in the GOYAKOD school of police investigations (get off your butt and knock on doors).


Why?!

"Knocking on doors" leads to the kind of evidence that you, in particular, have rejected as 'woefully lacking in probative value' (ear & eyewitness accounts, lies to police, failed alibis, prior bad acts, etc.).

Indeed you seem to be suffering from a uniquely virulent case of the "CSI Effect": not only do you reject any and all evidence that is not amenable to testing in a forensics lab, you reject any and all evidence emanating from a forensics lab if there is even a tiny possibility of error.

Nonsense. What produces false witness testimony, false confessions, and phony breaking of alibis, are interrogation tactics that feed information, cajole the witness or suspect, or threaten the witness or suspect. In both Lundy and Rafay/Burns the problem started with tunnel vision that blocked out the ability of the police to see the obvious. Not sure where the rest of your ideas come from, nor do I see any reason why I should care. If that sort of blather is all you have to contribute here, I wish that you would go trolling somewhere else.



"feed information" ... "cajole" ... "threaten"

Let's see ... the (pretty mild) tricks used by police here started off something like this:

'Hey, kid, thanks for the lift - Let me buy you a drink!'

Then:

'I know a way for you to make some money for your screenplay project ... just drive this stolen car from A to B ... just take this drug money from A to B ...'

As far as I can tell, there was nothing in that INITIAL portion of the sting that could be construed as a feeding info/ cajoling/threatening with respect to SB (or AR) - SB seems to have made the CHOICE to pursue a criminal path without any coercion (just as he had done with his insurance fraud).

And that's what interests me - I can see no good reason for SB (or AR) to have done so.

Granted, later came the talk about Mr. Big whacking guys, and, at that later point, such talk could be construed as an implied/ indirect threat ... but that was not there for SB's INITIAL CHOICE to pursue a criminal path.

As for "cajoling" and the "feeding [of] information", they seem to be as absent as the "threats", at least in the early stages.

At points, both SB &AR seemed to be positively BASKING in the attention Mr. Big was giving them (AR even verbally expressed that he felt "flattered", not cajoled!).

Are you saying that the 'stolen' police documents handed to SB & AR contained info that effectively 'fed' them???

From the video I saw, it seemed to me that, far from agents 'feeding info' to the suspects, it was the suspects who were giving the AGENTS the info THEY were missing! (So that's what you were wearing when the blood was flying! So that's what the weapon was! So that's why the sister wound up where she was! Etc.)
Mediocrates
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:23 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Chris_Halkides » Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:05 pm

Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby charlie_wilkes » Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:44 am

Chris_Halkides wrote:https://www.spreaker.com/user/injusticeanywhere/the-sebastian-burns-atif-rafay-case

This is worth a listen.


I listened to it. It sounds like Klonsky accepts the blood-in-the-shower evidence, and he thinks the killers used the shower to clean up. Somehow I doubt it. People who break into a house and kill everyone don't tend to stay for amenities, although I suppose there are exceptions.

I'd like to know more about this shower evidence. Were there any visible streaks of blood? Was any confirmatory test performed?

Or does it all hinge on Infallible Blue Loony-nol?
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 2027
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby erasmus44 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:51 am

A couple of issues. I guess the crime was committed in 1994 when the defendants were 18 and they ran into the Mr. Big buzz saw around 2004 when they were almost 30. So they weren't really impressionable teenagers when they "confessed".
Also - what exactly did they do for those 10 years? I can understand that they might have trouble getting a job in Vancouver. But why didn't they continue their education? Or move to Toronto where I would assume this case was not on the tip of everyone's tongue and get jobs there? How did they support themselves for 10 years? $300k in life insurance money would run out pretty fast.
Or am I missing something here?
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3137
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby charlie_wilkes » Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:02 am

erasmus44 wrote:A couple of issues. I guess the crime was committed in 1994 when the defendants were 18 and they ran into the Mr. Big buzz saw around 2004 when they were almost 30. So they weren't really impressionable teenagers when they "confessed".
Also - what exactly did they do for those 10 years? I can understand that they might have trouble getting a job in Vancouver. But why didn't they continue their education? Or move to Toronto where I would assume this case was not on the tip of everyone's tongue and get jobs there? How did they support themselves for 10 years? $300k in life insurance money would run out pretty fast.
Or am I missing something here?


Yeah, you're missing a lot.

The Mr. Big operation concluded less than a year after the murders, and Rafay and Burns were charged and arrested soon after. The delay was caused by an extradition fight, during which time Rafay and Burns were in a Canadian jail. They have been locked up since 1995.
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 2027
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby erasmus44 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:16 am

charlie_wilkes wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:A couple of issues. I guess the crime was committed in 1994 when the defendants were 18 and they ran into the Mr. Big buzz saw around 2004 when they were almost 30. So they weren't really impressionable teenagers when they "confessed".
Also - what exactly did they do for those 10 years? I can understand that they might have trouble getting a job in Vancouver. But why didn't they continue their education? Or move to Toronto where I would assume this case was not on the tip of everyone's tongue and get jobs there? How did they support themselves for 10 years? $300k in life insurance money would run out pretty fast.
Or am I missing something here?


Yeah, you're missing a lot.

The Mr. Big operation concluded less than a year after the murders, and Rafay and Burns were charged and arrested soon after. The delay was caused by an extradition fight, during which time Rafay and Burns were in a Canadian jail. They have been locked up since 1995.



Gulp! As Gilda Radner would put it "Never Mind."
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3137
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Chris_Halkides » Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:37 pm

I am now given to understand that the luminol testing was negative. There have been any number of...misapprehensions...about the defendants in this case. Perhaps the luminol results are another example.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby charlie_wilkes » Tue Oct 24, 2017 4:16 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:I am now given to understand that the luminol testing was negative. There have been any number of...misapprehensions...about the defendants in this case. Perhaps the luminol results are another example.


A negative result with Loony-nol? That's a first. How did they manage to claim "blood evidence"? Did they follow up with KM or something else?
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 2027
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Chris_Halkides » Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:07 pm

I infer that either the luminol itself was negative, or the follow up (presumably Kastle-Meyer or TMB) was negative. That is why they were allowed to go back to Canada.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby charlie_wilkes » Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:35 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:I infer that either the luminol itself was negative, or the follow up (presumably Kastle-Meyer or TMB) was negative. That is why they were allowed to go back to Canada.


I remember a cop was quoted as saying the shower "lit up like a Christmas tree," which suggests luminol. But I suppose the confirmatory tests were negative, probably because the luminol reacted to whatever cleanser was used to wipe down the shower periodically.
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 2027
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby erasmus44 » Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:38 pm

When you really drill down on this one, there is no evidence pointing to guilt other than the bogus Mr. Big confession and there is a ton of exculpatory evidence.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3137
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Samson » Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:30 am

These guys have been taken down by an industry that is never peer reviewed, and never called to account.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1976
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Chris_Halkides » Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:42 pm

erasmus44 wrote:When you really drill down on this one, there is no evidence pointing to guilt other than the bogus Mr. Big confession and there is a ton of exculpatory evidence.

Agreed.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Chris_Halkides » Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:43 pm

Samson wrote:These guys have been taken down by an industry that is never peer reviewed, and never called to account.

Just think how much money was spent on the Mr. Big operation.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby erasmus44 » Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:58 pm

Samson wrote:These guys have been taken down by an industry that is never peer reviewed, and never called to account.


The thing to remember about criminal investigation and criminal interrogation is that the objective is not necessarily to discover the truth. The objective is to close files. We have an enormous backlog of unsolved murders in the USA and so it is deemed desirable to move cases from the unsolved to the solved pile as often as possible. So from the point of view of the industry Mr. Big "works" because it helps close files.
Military intelligence and interrogation is different - there, the objective is accurate information.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3137
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Jeff.Chi » Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:27 am

"A ton of exculpatory evidence?"

What is all the exculpatory evidence? All I've seen so far is that that there is a lead that the murders may have been carried out by Muslim extremeists although there is only a small amount of circumstantial evidence to support that theory. There is a great deal of circumstantial evicence pointing to Burns and Raffay. How do you discount all of that evicence? You can see my post from earlier with a long list of evicence against them.
Jeff.Chi
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:25 am

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Jeff.Chi » Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:30 am

I have heard that Sebastian Burns has spent most of his prison sentence in solitary confinement. What is the reason for this?
Did his family ever hire a private investigator to look into this case?
Jeff.Chi
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:25 am

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Desert Fox » Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:34 am

I would like to see if there is some way that we could perform some ethical experiments with respect to Mr Big but if we can, I have a feeling that the evidence will be bad - ie: That it does not really give reliable evidence.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Chris_Halkides » Thu Nov 30, 2017 5:24 am

https://ablawg.ca/2015/07/23/the-law-on ... nfessions/
"The presence of highly probative corroborative evidence seems to be an important element of the admissibility of Mr. Big confession, particularly considering a person could potentially lose his or her liberty, the possibility of dishonest witnesses giving a false testimony, the frailties of human eyesight and memories, and the increased availability of forensic and DNA testing. "

Here is a situation in which one man is suing:
https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2016 ... crown.html
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Jeff.Chi » Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:09 pm

There is a book on this case titled "Perfectly Exectuted." I would like to read it this is what I learnef from a brief scan. These two quotes came from Sebastian's high school yearbook and are in the book: "Sebastian seized every weeping opportunity with a clenched fist, without regard for potential victims, exploited them in anyway that would yield laughter." And "Striding along his realm like a titan, Sebastian's furious contempt for the petty scriptures of the plebians about him could not be contained by the all too small hallways." They were by his senior photo as quotes he chose. Wow! What a nut!
Now the quote for Atif: "Atif descended through the clouds. Casting aside the hollow illusions of his peers, he gazed bemusedly at the petty struggles of those around him and began to laugh." Just as bad.
The play "Rope" in which Sebastian had the lead role was written in the 1920's. In the play the murder that is committed is a strangulation. The high school version that their high school staged the murder was done with a baseball bat. It was Sebastian's idea.
After the murders they rented a home and harassed and threatened their neighbors to such a degree that the neighbors had a restraining order taken out against them.
Jeff.Chi
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:25 am

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Desert Fox » Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:37 pm

My friends and I have talked about how one would rob an armored car. If an armored car is robbed and it appears to have some passing resemblance to what we discussed, does this mean that we did it?
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Jeff.Chi » Thu Nov 30, 2017 5:43 pm

Desert Fox wrote:My friends and I have talked about how one would rob an armored car. If an armored car is robbed and it appears to have some passing resemblance to what we discussed, does this mean that we did it?


Well, of course not, but you already knew that. I'm talking about is an accumulation of circumstantial evidence when all added together makes an incredibly compelling case that they are guilty.
Jeff.Chi
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:25 am

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Chris_Halkides » Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:34 am

The timeline is still impossible, and the presumed clean-up is still perfect. Until those problems are remedied, I do not see why I should care what high school play Sebastian Burns was in.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Jeff.Chi » Fri Dec 01, 2017 4:54 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:The timeline is still impossible, and the presumed clean-up is still perfect. Until those problems are remedied, I do not see why I should care what high school play Sebastian Burns was in.


Can you clarify or link a document to the problems with the timeline? Didn't the jury know about those problems? You feel they had to be at the movie theater during the murder?
What do you mean when you say the cleanup was perfect? What would you expect with ceanup?
Jeff.Chi
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:25 am

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Chris_Halkides » Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:48 am

Jeff.Chi,

Work has kept me pretty busy these days. I don't have a timeline for the night of the murders, but I found these two quotes:

Link1 "In addition to the lack of physical evidence against them, Rafay and Burns had an apparently unshakeable alibi. They were seen and positively identified watching a movie at a Bellevue theater at 10 p.m. on the night of the murders. But neighbors specifically recalled hearing loud thumping noises from inside the Rafay home at 9:50 p.m., ruling out the presence of the two then-teens at the site as the killings were taking place, as the theater was too far from the Rafay home to be reached in 10 minutes flat — even assuming that Rafay and Burns did not stop to thoroughly cleanse themselves of any blood evidence.

Link4 "So the prosecutor obfuscated the time by calling the neighbours’ recollections into question."

It is a remarkable claim that people with no prior experience of killing someone could remove all of the evidence from themselves.

Link2 "A bludgeoning is an extremely bloody way to kill. It goes, almost without saying, that for one to bludgeon three different people to death and leave no trace of blood in the scalp or anywhere else on his face is unlikely. Showering would not be sufficient. They agreed to undergo forensic testing for five days without legal representation, because they thought their innocence would protect them."

Link3 "Sebastian and Atif are up all night with police, mostly at the Bellevue Police Department. Atif submits to a second interview with Detective Thompson at 6:50 am and Sebastian submits to a second interview with Detective Thompson at 7:30 am. Sebastian and Atif provide police with their clothing. Sebastian and Atif are examined by an alternative light source for evidence of blood spatter. Sebastian and Atif are examined for gun shot residue."
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Chris_Halkides » Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:04 am

"In the hours and days that followed the murders, Sebastian and Atif accompanied the Bellevue Police for extensive questioning, provided them with their clothing, shoes and eyeglasses, and allowed police to perform searches of their bodies and affects using a specialized light designed to detect blood in miniscule quantities. They allowed the Bellevue police to fingerprint, photograph them and subject them to a gunshot residue test. They did not deny a single police request during these days and did not exercise their Miranda right to counsel. Atif signed a search warrant and gave investigators his password so they could search his computer."

At this same location, Link1, the author goes on to discuss the blood spatter. "Ross Gardner, the state’s expert who examined the blood spatter evidence, concluded both in his report and in trial that at least three people were in Dr. Rafay’s bedroom while blows were being struck. While on the stand, this expert said, 'I cannot explain the stains in any other way.'" Someone in this thread opined that maybe Sebastian was joined by Atif and Jimmy; however, the state's theory is that Sebastian alone did the killings. Therefore, the state's theory is contradicted by the state's own witness. The state's case also relies upon casting doubt upon the neighbors' recollections. Good luck with fashioning a coherent case out of this mess.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Atif Rafay - Sebastian Burns

Postby Chris_Halkides » Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:56 pm

Link "Despite their full cooperation with the Bellevue Police and their escorted and legal return to Canada, the Bellevue Police soon decided they were prime suspects and labeled them fugitives. Then they told journalists in both countries a series of lies:

That Sebastian and Atif had behaved strangely on the night of the murders and the following days, thereby arousing suspicion;
That they had failed to show emotion after finding the Rafay family murdered;
That they did not cooperate with the police in Bellevue;
That they purposefully missed the funeral;
That they “fled” to Canada."

Whenever a police force or prosecuting team has to resort to lies to make their case, one wonders whether there is a case.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Previous

Return to Possible Wrongful Convictions: Member Submissions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests