Tammy Lu had no chance. The killer surprised her in her car, strangled her with her purse strap, then hid her body. The author of this murder, a “failed kidnapping” according to police theory, is Frank Cao, the jury decided Friday, finding him guilty of second-degree murder.
The daycare owner is therefore automatically sentenced to life in prison. Judge Catherine Perreault will now have to impose a period of ineligibility for parole of at least 10 years. Frank Cao, 65, however, avoided the worst, since he was accused of first degree murder, therefore premeditated.
The jurors unanimously suggested imposing a period of 18 years before being eligible for parole.
The defense lawyer, Mr.e Pierre L’Écuyer, however, intends to file a request for an abortion of the trial. For this reason, the judge did not technically endorse the jury’s verdict.
Shao Jing Lu, nicknamed Tammy, was murdered on September 7, 2020 in the indoor parking lot of the Evolo condo tower on L’Île-des-Sœurs, in Montreal. She then went to her car to go to an appointment. His body was found by his daughter at the foot of the back seat of his vehicle.
PHOTO ARCHIVES THE PRESS
Shao Jing Lu, also known as Tammy
On the day of the murder, Frank Cao spent five hours in the parking lot of this building where he once lived. He had kept an access card, even though he did not have the right to do so. What was he doing there? Sleeping, he told the police. He did not testify in his defense.
Frank Cao instead took advantage of his access to the parking lot to kill Tammy Lu, a woman he did not know. However, the jury likely concluded that Cao did not plan to murder the woman that day.
The evidence was particularly strong: Frank Cao’s DNA was found under the victim’s fingernails and on her bag. At one point, the killer could be seen hiding in a fire escape for several minutes. He then wore a hood, despite the heat. He even changed his clothes before leaving.
PHOTO FILED AS PROOF
In the footage, Frank Cao can be seen minutes after the murder of Shao Jing “Tammy” Lu. He is wearing a hoodie, despite the heat outside.
We can believe that the lack of motive may have led the jury to question the premeditation of Frank Cao’s action. Remember that nothing in the evidence linked him to this woman or her family.
The jury was unaware, however, that the police believed from the start that it was a “failed kidnapping”, committed by a man riddled with debt. He had just paid $1 million to settle a dispute. A few months after the murder, Frank Cao was arrested in an extortion and kidnapping case. However, this theory has never been proven.
According to a search warrant, Frank Cao was “suspect in a kidnapping event” targeting a woman. “ [Cao] allegedly gave a note to the victim’s spouse asking for a sum of money, because otherwise his wife would die,” the warrant states.
The Crown ultimately did not offer evidence in this case which concluded in December 2021 with an “810”, an undertaking from Frank Cao not to contact the victim for a year. Let us clarify that the woman targeted in this case is not the murdered woman.
Sentencing submissions are scheduled for the end of December.
Me Matthew Ferguson represented the Crown.