This is the University of Toronto professor David Buller who was murdered in his office.

I’m puzzled as to the timeline of events. There were sounds of an altercation at 1:30 PM, yet police believe he used his computer until after 2 PM and was murdered around 2:25. Did the person he fought with return and murder him? Was the sketch made by Buller or the killer? If it was a clue from David, why not just write the man’s name down? (I am assuming the killer was a man)

Has anyone seen the sketch? The podcast said it had been released but the six words on it were not, but I couldn’t find it online.

The killer was likely a colleague or student based on their knowledge of campus. A lot of college buildings connect underground via a series of tunnels, so if you know how to get around, you can get in and out of places without being seen by many people.

Any theories?

So...no one is listening to the podcast, huh?

So...no one is listening to the podcast, huh?

I've been listening OP! :-)

Not only have I been listening to the UM podcast, but I've been enjoying it tremendously. The narrator, subject matter, and return to the classic theme music were all great choices IMO that have made the UM podcast a cut above.

I definitely enjoyed the most recent episode covering the Buller case, but it ended up as somewhat of a head scratcher...for me at least. I could so easily see this case going in a couple different directions to be honest. On the one hand, I could see Buller's murder playing out as a senseless hate crime, but at the same time I could see the potential for a crime of passion here as well. I think I'm going to do a bit more research on this case so I can return later with a more informed assessment.

While I enjoy the podcast--the production quality is high and it's interesting--I feel like the stories they're presenting (even the non-supernatural ones) simply don't have much of a chance of being solved and there's not really a lot to discuss. In both cases it seemed like personal grudges were involved, but other than briefly alluding to rivalries/bad feelings, they don't really expand on that in any meaningful way so there's not a lot to speculate on.

I've been listening to the new podcast and I really like it. I love that they have some supernatural episodes!

In this particular case, I do feel like hate crime/crime of passion = most likely.

I feel like whoever did this knew his way around the college campus quite well. I work at a large university and most students wouldn't even know how to get to most staff/faculty offices unless they'd been there before. The investigator interviewed said that it was not an easy location to get to if you were just casually wandering around campus.

Re: the hate crime angle, colleges campuses tend to be very progressive environments. I'm not saying homophobia doesn't exist on campus, especially in the early 2000s, but to the degree of actual homicide is a little bit questionable. Stranger things have happened, for sure, but it does give me pause, unless it was a deranged and homophobic student.

I do feel that this is one of the "most mysterious" of the cases presented so far on the podcast, with no easy or obvious solution. I also don't feel like the mystery was overblown on this one; it is genuinely baffling. Good job UM podcast!

One idea I thought of, and given the fact that the person must have known where Buller's office was, could have been - what if the attacker was a model who had posed or worked with David?

It wouldn't have been uncommon for an Art Professor, particular one who was active or painting as David was, to hire or employ models for his own personal work (or sketches). This would account for his knowledge of the building and how he may have gotten in past the party in the bottom floor, and the fact that David may have trusted him or not been surprised to see him in his office.

Additionally, in the effort to promote further discussions (particularly in the case of a Canadian murder, and one close to home), I've linked some documents and info below.

Article about David and the case, containing a sketch found in David Buller's office (linked in this article : https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxmcmllbmRzb2ZkYXZpZGJ1bGxlcnxneDozZjZlODIxMTU4NTY5OWY3) which shows a man with glasses and grey hair, looking at a nude man with an obscured face who appears to be bound. Interestingly enough, this same article mentions that the printed photo was different than the computer version:

"But the version that landed on Buller’s printer was not the same as the one saved on his computer. Unlike the version on the screen, the hard copy included multiple words—words the police refuse to release to
this day, hoping they might be an ace in the hole, should a suspect ever surface. “The words are significant,” Taylor told Maclean’s in 2006. (Now an inspector, Taylor did not respond to recent requests for comment; neither did current officers with the force’s cold case unit.) - bolding is my own.

Archive of David's Art: http://www.ccca.ca/artists/work_detail.html?languagePref=en&mkey=63896&link_id=1629 (Notice that his art makes a dramatic turn from abstract to more homoerotic in '92, not sure if that has a particular significance, but I found it interesting).

Friends of David Buller Website: http://www.friendsofdavidbuller.info/home (Most of the links here on the news page are dead, as is the Bio section. Perhaps Archive.org may have backups?)

Hope this sparks some discussion!

Thank you for posting the Google doc. I don’t know what to make of the sketch. If it were a clue to the killer’s identity, why not just write down the killer’s name? Are we sure David drew the sketch, or was it the killer?

I’m curious about the words on the sketch that the police are withholding. Would could they say that are so important to the case?

Thank you for posting the Google doc. I don’t know what to make of the sketch. If it were a clue to the killer’s identity, why not just write down the killer’s name? Are we sure David drew the sketch, or was it the killer?

I’m curious about the words on the sketch that the police are withholding. Would could they say that are so important to the case?
The sketch is confusing for sure. There must have been some reason it was made, from the little bit of art we have from David, it doesn't seem like that sort of imagery (or even subject matter) was directed in his work. So I think there must have been a purpose for it. To your point about who drew the sketch; it's unclear. Part of the ambiguity is what happened when this was going on. Did David draw this under duress? if so, he wasn't likely to say "this is the killer's name", because he may have been watched. Did the killer draw it? It's possible, but bear in mind, that picture took about 19 minutes (give or take) to draw. If someone was unfamiliar with the software, it would be hard to do it that quick, and it feels like someone did it who had some artistic talent. Plus, drawing that accurately with a mouse isn't easy, and if there was a mouse at the desk, and the drawing was made with it, then I really doubt it was someone who didn't have artistic training. It's not clear if there was a stylus or a mouse at the desk.

One thing I do wonder that may have shed some light on the creator, was if the investigators were able to look at similar works David had done in that program on his computer, and if that drawing matched some of the same works stylistically. If it was close, you could argue it was his work. (Did they not dust the mouse/stylus for fingerprints? It doesn't say in the article. Does anyone know?)

This brings up further questions;
1. Were the WORDS what caused the issue? Could it have been that David put some key things in the drawing that made the intruder mad and let to his death?
2. Were the words put in by the intruder or David?
3. There's a 3 minute gap between the image being saved and printed. Could something have gone on then that lead to the words appearing, and David being stabbed?
4. Did the relationship between the men in the painting have anything to do with what happened? (eg. was the submissive the dominant when he shouldn't have been, or did he get tired of that role and wanted to get back?)
5. Does the open supply cupboard have anything to do with any of this? Could the intruder have been looking for something?
6. How were investigators able to tell that at 1:09, David was "sifting through painting stored on the hard drive"?

To your last point about the words - I'm not sure what they could have been either, but they must have been something very unique for them to withhold the information. The article says "words the police refuse to release to this day, hoping they might be an ace in the hole, should a suspect ever surface", and so it doesn't seem as if they point to anyone in particular (or LEAD to anyone in particular). Rather it seems like they would implicate whomever did it, partially through information that only they would know?

Not sure that this answered anything, it could have lead to more questions, but that's part of discussion.