General Discussion and Theories #3

[Archangel7]

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4...s-for-answers-after-millard-farm-search-ends/

Interesting points:

"On Friday night officers packed up and left the farm, as their search warrant had expired, said Constable Victor Kwong."

I seem to recall the same officer stating earlier that they could stay as long as they wanted.

The previous owner also makes comments on the barrels, excavator, and incinerator.

I'm guessing the Const. was wong..........

Pretty easy to determine. Just get a copy of it and review. I would think a newspaper is already doing that unless it was sealed.

 

[CanuckSleuth]

What if the barrels in the barn arrived after the initial searches?

Just a random thought. It wasn't a sealed crime scene, maybe it was left that way to smoke out more people or tips? JMO

 

[Arnie M]

Interesting the former farm owner said the barrels ... "were not his" .... that clarifies a few things.

I still hold to my prediction the barrels are old hangar stuff moved to the barn. I have owned buildings with chemicals , paints , paint strippers , acid , etc .... those things are very common in industries , we work with them daily , but they are very expensive to purchase , and for that reason the "leftovers" are never thrown out.

We hang on to them for use another day ... and often that day never comes .... then it becomes an insurance / storage issue .... insurance inspectors request removal of "dead stock" flamables etc .... no better place than an old barn in the country if you have one.

Some industrial aircraft paints are $900 a gallon so a barrel of leftovers can potentially still be worth $45,000 if it is ever needed ..... and if it is never needed it is worth nothing and it would cost money to have it properly disposed of. Makes sense to hang on to it in the meantime.

Most likely the barrels are part of a hangar cleanup. Nefarious uses such as acid to dissolve things would not be necessary if you have a modern incinerator to do it. Sad and ugly thoughts from the land of conjecture.

I stand by my $1 bet the barrels will not play a part in this case.

 

[redheart]

I tend to agree that the barrels don't mean anything. I think they just had to get the barrels out of the way to see what might be hiding under them or in amongst them. Due to the chemical or combustive contents of the barrels, all sorts of safety precautions had to be taken.

 

[Juballee]

I tend to agree that the barrels don't mean anything. I think they just had to get the barrels out of the way to see what might be hiding under them or in amongst them. Due to the chemical or combustive contents of the barrels, all sorts of safety precautions had to be taken.

I still have to wonder why they wouldn't look in or under them when they were there conducting two separate homicide investigations. Even if they found them half as suspicious as the posters here, why wouldn't they guard the barn while they were waiting for a warrant to search them? Is there any way to make sense of that?

 

[Murphys_Law]

Originally Posted by redheart
I tend to agree that the barrels don't mean anything. I think they just had to get the barrels out of the way to see what might be hiding under them or in amongst them. Due to the chemical or combustive contents of the barrels, all sorts of safety precautions had to be taken.

I still have to wonder why they wouldn't look in or under them when they were there conducting two separate homicide investigations. Even if they found them half as suspicious as the posters here, why wouldn't they guard the barn while they were waiting for a warrant to search them? Is there any way to make sense of that?

Two strong possibilities include:

1. The barrels were extremely well concealed, possibly under deep mounds of hay and manure, or stored in a "secret" room, or underground bunker (more about that later)
2. The barrels and the barn were being guarded/monitored by plain clothed officers, and high tech devices (cameras, RFIDs, etc) in hopes of catching others knowledgable about their contents.

 

[Juballee]

Two strong possibilities include:

1. The barrels were extremely well concealed, possibly under deep mounds of hay and manure, or stored in a "secret" room, or underground bunker (more about that later)
2. The barrels and the barn were being guarded/monitored by plain clothed officers, and high tech devices (cameras, RFIDs, etc) in hopes of catching others knowledgable about their contents.

That still wouldn't explain why they wouldn't look under hay for evidence of a homicide, was there no search for blood splatter or a murder weapon?

 

[Murphys_Law]

That still wouldn't explain why they wouldn't look under hay for evidence of a homicide, was there no search for blood splatter or a murder weapon?

We(the public) do not know that they did not look under the hay. Earlier tweets suggested LE did look in the barn, however the intensity of that search is unknown to the public.

 

[Variant]

That still wouldn't explain why they wouldn't look under hay for evidence of a homicide, was there no search for blood splatter or a murder weapon?

How about (my opinion of course):

HPS already had enough evidence to determine that the barn wasn't the scene of TB's death. They did not need to expend time or resources to get a warrant that allowed a comprehensive search of the barn.

TPS had to accumulate enough evidence about LB's disappearance to get a judge to approve a warrant to do a comprehensive search of the barn. They did not have this at the time of their first property search.

Accused do have pretty strong property rights with respect to what LE can move or remove without a strong reason presented to the judge, whether the property is their house or a dilapidated barn. (I've used the example of how limited LE were in searching Bernardo's house.)

LE didn't want to jeopardize either case by going beyond their legal constraints.

 

[Sillybilly]

How about (my opinion of course):

HPS already had enough evidence to determine that the barn wasn't the scene of TB's death. They did not need to expend time or resources to get a warrant that allowed a comprehensive search of the barn.

TPS had to accumulate enough evidence about LB's disappearance to get a judge to approve a warrant to do a comprehensive search of the barn. They did not have this at the time of their first property search.

Accused do have pretty strong property rights with respect to what LE can move or remove without a strong reason presented to the judge, whether the property is their house or a dilapidated barn. (I've used the example of how limited LE were in searching Bernardo's house.)

LE didn't want to jeopardize either case by going beyond their legal constraints.

ITA ... and we can bet our boots that, had LE searched every barrel, every piece of straw and every blade of grass on that 100 acres and beyond, there would be folks complaining about the waste of resources.

Damned do / damned don't

 

[Juballee]

How about (my opinion of course):

HPS already had enough evidence to determine that the barn wasn't the scene of TB's death. They did not need to expend time or resources to get a warrant that allowed a comprehensive search of the barn.

TPS had to accumulate enough evidence about LB's disappearance to get a judge to approve a warrant to do a comprehensive search of the barn. They did not have this at the time of their first property search.

Accused do have pretty strong property rights with respect to what LE can move or remove without a strong reason presented to the judge, whether the property is their house or a dilapidated barn. (I've used the example of how limited LE were in searching Bernardo's house.)

LE didn't want to jeopardize either case by going beyond their legal constraints.

I have never heard of LE saying, "We have enough evidence, we don't need to look for a murder weapon or bother to process the entire scene, that's not worth getting a warrant for."

They either looked in the barn the first time or they didn't, and it was posted here that there was media confirmation that they did look in the barn the first time. Therefore it seems unreal to me that when TPS were conducting their search for LB that HPS wouldn't suggest that they also get a warrant to look into the suspicious barrels or under the mounds of hay. And again, if it was about getting a warrant, they could have easily secured the barn until a warrant could be made. What judge wouldn't be curious about what might be in 54 barrels in a couple of homicide investigations?

The accused didn't have strong enough rights to keep news cameras from trespassing on his property and taking footage through his windows, I can't imagine those rights were what kept LE from searching the barn. Also, in that case, wouldn't he still have the same rights to keep his barn from being searched now as he did in May and June? I think a missing woman supposedly connected to the accused along with the combination of having 54 great places to hide a body would have been sufficient to get a warrant to search the barn, in my opinion.

I believe when we are comparing these searches to RW or PB, we have to remember that those were searches of residences where other people resided, this is a dilapidated old barn, less chance of disturbing innocent people in that search. There still is no reasonable explanation as to why they waited 4 months to search the only building on the property, in my opinion.

If I were arrested for suspicion of murder and the police searched my house thoroughly, but then looked into my garage and saw a whole bunch of barrels and tarps covering everything, I would really be shocked if they didn't peek under the tarps or crack open at least a few barrels. Does this not seem odd to anyone else here?

 

[ArianeEmory]

ITA ... and we can bet our boots that, had LE searched every barrel, every piece of straw and every blade of grass on that 100 acres and beyond, there would be folks complaining about the waste of resources.

Damned do / damned don't

Plus the expectation of 24/7/365 surveillance of any property they may plan to search more thoroughly in the future.

 

[Sillybilly]

The accused didn't have strong enough rights to keep news cameras from trespassing on his property and taking footage through his windows, I can't imagine those rights were what kept LE from searching the barn. Also, in that case, wouldn't he still have the same rights to keep his barn from being searched now as he did in May and June? I think a missing woman supposedly connected to the accused along with the combination of having 54 great places to hide a body would have been sufficient to get a warrant to search the barn, in my opinion.

IMO, reporters > search warrants = apples > oranges.

It wasn't his rights that kept the barn from being searched ... it would have been lack of information or evidence to indicate that the barn needed to be searched and to substantiate a warrant ... regardless of a judge's curiousity :floorlaugh:

 

[Juballee]

ITA ... and we can bet our boots that, had LE searched every barrel, every piece of straw and every blade of grass on that 100 acres and beyond, there would be folks complaining about the waste of resources.

Damned do / damned don't

So better to do an improper search in two separate homicide investigations than be accused by a few of wasting taxpayer money? I don't really think it is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't, nor do I think that they should (or do) conduct their investigations according to public opinion in regards to their budget. I doubt that is what stopped them from looking in the barn the first time, otherwise, it would still stop them, because we could see the huge expense spent on search number three.

Off topic, did anyone see dogs joining the search there this time?

 

[redheart]

Jennifer Pagliaro from the Toronto Star tweets:

Toronto Police tell me substance in barrels tested at Dellen Millard's farm not "relevant" in disappearance of Laura Babcock. Story up soon.

https://twitter.com/jpags

 

[Murphys_Law]

Previous owner said the barn had no cellar or sub-level where the barrels could have been stored
.
http://www.therecord.com/news-story...-missing-woman-s-family-anxious-for-findings/

I do not believe that some 54 barrels of unknown substances would have been found then left unattended by LE in the open within the barn. Therefore IMO, they were well concealed.

It's no easy task to hide 50 some barrels. Visualize the space required.
Here's a photo of approx 50barrels (albeit unrelated to this case)

DM had the resources(money, equip operators),
materials (recall the pile of I-beams outside the barn),
tools (excavator, skidsteer etc) and
time to construct an underground storage bunker to house the barrels.

 

[bessie]

So better to do an improper search in two separate homicide investigations than be accused by a few of wasting taxpayer money? I don't really think it is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't, nor do I think that they should (or do) conduct their investigations according to public opinion in regards to their budget. I doubt that is what stopped them from looking in the barn the first time, otherwise, it would still stop them, because we could see the huge expense spent on search number three.

Off topic, did anyone see dogs joining the search there this time?

Do you have a theory on why LE didn't do an extensive search of the barn prior to last week?

 

[Murphys_Law]

Thanks Bessie for resizing the photo!
My apologies, I didn't know how to reduce it.

 

[Variant]

On a different tangent:

On the subject of life imitates "art", I find the parallels in some of the details about DM and his favourite television show interesting.

I'm thinking his favourite character wasn't Dexter, but Jordan Chase, a fifth season antagonist whose back story is that he grew from being an odd "fat kid" to a "very ambitious man", a philosophical, charismatic leader of a foundation, a front for a death cult that disposes of victims in barrels. Chase, also a photographer, records the crimes.

http://dexter.wikia.com/wiki/Jordan_Chase

DM would have learned from watching Dexter that barrels can be discovered, which leads me to think that one of his favourite movies may be Monsieur Verdoux, a Charlie Chaplin black comedy based on the real French mass murderer Henri Landru.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsieur_Verdoux"]Monsieur Verdoux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Verdoux/Landru used incinerators because he believed that evidence would be sufficiently destroyed that he would avoid conviction even if implicated in the disappearances. The bodies were all sufficiently destroyed for the forensics of the time. What V/L did not realize is that French law allows circumstantial evidence to be used to convict, moreso than here.

The movie starts with neighbours complaining about the smell and soot emanating from the incinerator and Verdoux aghast that he almost stepped on a caterpillar (not an ant) after stuffing the incinerator. The movie makes several points about V/L's love of animals and his philosophical justification for murdering humans.

Not in the movie but in real life, Landru's father committed suicide when he learned what his son was up to.

 

[Sillybilly]

I suspect that the May 28 TPS ground search behind the barn was based on information that did not specifically include the barn. Just because an officer may have done a cursory look in the barn at that time and seen hay, barrels, antiquated farm equipment, etc, there may have been nothing visible to indicate it could have been involved in a crime that would substantiate another warrant to include the barn at that time.

I believe the current TPS search based on new information is what substantiated the second warrant wrt the barn and its contents.

While a warrant may not be able to be entirely specific, it also cannot be too broad.

From:
http://canlii.ca/en/on/onca/doc/1987/1987canlii122/1987canlii122.html

In dealing with the matter of particularity, Osler J. said in Scientology (No. 6), supra, at p. 176:

On the vexed and difficult question as to whether the things to be searched for and seized were described with sufficient particularity, I was referred to a very large number of cases, some upholding and some refusing to uphold a warrant. Many of these cases are instructive in that they outline and develop the principles upon which these matters are to be judged. These principles appear to me to include the following. The description of what is to be searched for must not be so broad and vague as to give the searching officers carte blanche to rummage through the premises of the target.

<bbm>