That platform looks newly constructed to me. If that excavator is stuck in a swampy area and needs repairs before they can even try to move it, they might build a temporary work platform because it's too wet to work around the machine on the ground it is stuck in. To call in a towing service that can pull equipment like that out would be extremely pricy, so for a property owner just messing around with big boy toys it makes sense to build a stable work area to try to get the machine running again and out of the swamp on its own power.
General Discussion and Theories #3
- Thread starter bessie
- Start date
- Status
That platform looks newly constructed to me. If that excavator is stuck in a swampy area and needs repairs before they can even try to move it, they might build a temporary work platform because it's too wet to work around the machine on the ground it is stuck in. To call in a towing service that can pull equipment like that out would be extremely pricy, so for a property owner just messing around with big boy toys it makes sense to build a stable work area to try to get the machine running again and out of the swamp on its own power.
It's just an idiom meaning that he has a good overview - can see the big picture.
swedie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2011
- Messages
- 5,472
- Reaction score
- 279
On what it means to have a linkage
“The linkages could be as easy as a street name or a street address, could be a person’s name. Could be an object. It could be through [the Centre of Forensic Sciences], could be through DNA. Fingerprints. Those are linkages. Could be a statement, could be somebody that gave a statement in Hamilton’s case had information on a Toronto case. I’m not saying that’s the case.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...n-millards-father-linked-opp/article14704340/
“The linkages could be as easy as a street name or a street address, could be a person’s name. Could be an object. It could be through [the Centre of Forensic Sciences], could be through DNA. Fingerprints. Those are linkages. Could be a statement, could be somebody that gave a statement in Hamilton’s case had information on a Toronto case. I’m not saying that’s the case.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...n-millards-father-linked-opp/article14704340/
swedie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2011
- Messages
- 5,472
- Reaction score
- 279
Toronto Police now say that dozens of barrels recovered on the farm of accused murderer Dellen Millard are not important to their search for a missing Toronto woman.
The head of the Toronto homicide squad, Staff Insp. Greg McLane, said police actually found the barrels on Monday, when they began executing a search warrant.
It’s not clear if police found anything else of importance to the investigation at the farm.
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...elevant_to_missing_woman_case_police_say.html
The head of the Toronto homicide squad, Staff Insp. Greg McLane, said police actually found the barrels on Monday, when they began executing a search warrant.
It’s not clear if police found anything else of importance to the investigation at the farm.
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...elevant_to_missing_woman_case_police_say.html
Snoofo
New Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2013
- Messages
- 5,673
- Reaction score
- 0
The article is from mid september and we knew this already. Is this an updated version with something new in it?
swedie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2011
- Messages
- 5,472
- Reaction score
- 279
I had not heard some of the points I posted, such as actually found the barrels on Monday, when they began executing a search warrant.
There was speculation the barrels had just been discovered but I do not recall reading anything to confirm otherwise. If this particular information has been previously been posted, guess I missed it and IMO it never hurts to repost info. HTH.
Snoofo
New Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2013
- Messages
- 5,673
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes Swedie, you may have been away during that period. They only discovered them on Monday. I think this is why we shouldnt be too shocked to hear about the handy dandy incorporation of Major Case Management. Had it been in place earlier, it may not have taken four months to notice dozens of barrels in a barn.
I find it hard to believe that Hamilton and Toronto Police Service did not see any barrels in the barn - even though TPS is saying they only noticed them on first day of their last search.
My guess - HPS saw them but they had no bearing on their case ie they found all they needed to charge DM without the expense of calling in the OPP to take samples of the contents of the barrels.
TPS already jumped to an assumption and erroneous conclusion in 2012 wrt to LB, so have to wonder (cannot discount) that TPS rushed to judgement again and assumed HPS tested the contents during their first search (big hole, photo op, outta there).
My further guess is, TPS realized later that HPS did not test the contents due to not having a need - TPS had the need.
And my last guess is, HPS had to concede having TPS anywhere near their suspect, even on another case, would prove to be a nightmare (excess baggage) in court with the defense, so HPS was the bigger 'person' and called in the OPP to utilize MCM.
Jmo.
My guess - HPS saw them but they had no bearing on their case ie they found all they needed to charge DM without the expense of calling in the OPP to take samples of the contents of the barrels.
TPS already jumped to an assumption and erroneous conclusion in 2012 wrt to LB, so have to wonder (cannot discount) that TPS rushed to judgement again and assumed HPS tested the contents during their first search (big hole, photo op, outta there).
My further guess is, TPS realized later that HPS did not test the contents due to not having a need - TPS had the need.
And my last guess is, HPS had to concede having TPS anywhere near their suspect, even on another case, would prove to be a nightmare (excess baggage) in court with the defense, so HPS was the bigger 'person' and called in the OPP to utilize MCM.
Jmo.
I agree that I find it hard to believe that 2 teams of professionals encompassing well over 100 individuals, did not find any barrels. I am also amazed that neither of the first two searches wondered what all that hay could be hiding.
I disagree that HPS could have seen them previously, because any LE would surely know that where there is one body, there may be others, and that barrels are a classic hiding place for bodies. Even if HPS found all they needed without the barn, having more wouldn't have hurt. Besides, it was their duty to search diligently for clues, and looking in the only building on the property should have been made into some sort of priority from the beginning, in my opinion.
Because the LB case was at the time of their search a separate matter from the TB case, TPS should not have made any assumptions that HPS had tested anything related to their case, in my opinion. If TPS really believed that DM had been involved in the disappearance of LB when they made a show of searching the farm the first time, why wasn't this promoted to MCM then, that doesn't makes sense to me. It would have given them the clear answer on what HPS had seen on their initial search of the barn and could have saved the tremendous expense of the third search. Which is also what makes me believe that expense was not a factor for either force when the decision was made not to further search the barn the first time (or two).
I can see some would feel HPS should have torn the barn apart during their search, but I can also see HPS knew TPS would be along shortly wanting to search also.
If those were the circumstances, TPS should have torn the barn apart the first time and should have been well aware what HPS had not done and what was left to do - no assumptions if in fact they made any, and no need to come back.
The timing to bump this to MCM makes sense to me. It makes a useful and much needed buffer all around. Jmo.
If those were the circumstances, TPS should have torn the barn apart the first time and should have been well aware what HPS had not done and what was left to do - no assumptions if in fact they made any, and no need to come back.
The timing to bump this to MCM makes sense to me. It makes a useful and much needed buffer all around. Jmo.
hopingforjustice
Active Member
- Joined
- May 22, 2013
- Messages
- 430
- Reaction score
- 52
IMO The first time they went to the farm it was to look for TB..they found him.
If they saw they barrels there at the time, it really would be mute..That is not what they were looking for..
The second search was very "specific", was outside of the barn and as has been discussed these search warrants must be specific and LE only granted "specific" access. Again...they may have seen them there but couldn't connect the dots..
The third search..for whatever reason...they had enough to convince a judge to allow them into the barn. The barrels were spotted on first day but were not what they were concerned with. They searched for the evidence they were led to believe was there. They may or may not have found it. I believe the testing on the barrels was a "just in case" "while our warrant is alive" kind of thing. Waste of money..perhaps...we can say that being as the word is the the barrels are not relevant but imagine how attitudes would change should that testing have provided vital evidence?
If they saw they barrels there at the time, it really would be mute..That is not what they were looking for..
The second search was very "specific", was outside of the barn and as has been discussed these search warrants must be specific and LE only granted "specific" access. Again...they may have seen them there but couldn't connect the dots..
The third search..for whatever reason...they had enough to convince a judge to allow them into the barn. The barrels were spotted on first day but were not what they were concerned with. They searched for the evidence they were led to believe was there. They may or may not have found it. I believe the testing on the barrels was a "just in case" "while our warrant is alive" kind of thing. Waste of money..perhaps...we can say that being as the word is the the barrels are not relevant but imagine how attitudes would change should that testing have provided vital evidence?
swedie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2011
- Messages
- 5,472
- Reaction score
- 279
The fact LE were looking for TB and found him very soon after getting a search warrant, and setting foot on DM's property, LE at that point had no need to search further. A search warrant written up by the judge or JOP would be very specific and to go beyond those specified perimeters would be a huge risk which could lead to having potentially important evidence thrown out by the defense or judge. I believe the property is what the warrant was written up for and however LE found out about DM's property, it seems apparent there was a pretty strong indication TB was there in order to get a warrant.
Once TB was found, there would be no validity to continue the search other then for evidence within the warrant's recommendations. I am to believe the barn would not fall under that warrant as it is a separate entity from the farmland. If LE have a warrant to search someone's house, it does not include your sheds or garage IIRC. LE may have walked through the barn and the property surrounding the barn as other LE were heading back to the bush area of the property, but once TB was found and nothing obvious on of crime upon walking through, they probably did not have the right nor a warrant to do a search of the barn. MOO and HTH.
[I]Description of the Place to be Searched
A warrant of a premises must accurately describe the location to be searched. If it fails to do so the warrant will be invalid.
The sufficiency of the description of the place must be assessed based on the face of the warrant, separately from the contents of the ITO or the manner it was executed. Failure to name a place on the warrant "is not a mere matter of procedural defect, but so fundamental as to render the document of no legal effect.
Description of Thing(s) to be Seized
The warrant's description of things to be seized "operates as a guide for the officers conducting the search."
The justice of the peace loses jurisdiction where the description is over-broad or too vague such that it essentially allows the officer to conduct a "carte blanche" search for any evidence within the premises.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadi..._Practice/Search_and_Seizure/Warrant_Searches
Once TB was found, there would be no validity to continue the search other then for evidence within the warrant's recommendations. I am to believe the barn would not fall under that warrant as it is a separate entity from the farmland. If LE have a warrant to search someone's house, it does not include your sheds or garage IIRC. LE may have walked through the barn and the property surrounding the barn as other LE were heading back to the bush area of the property, but once TB was found and nothing obvious on of crime upon walking through, they probably did not have the right nor a warrant to do a search of the barn. MOO and HTH.
[I]Description of the Place to be Searched
A warrant of a premises must accurately describe the location to be searched. If it fails to do so the warrant will be invalid.
The sufficiency of the description of the place must be assessed based on the face of the warrant, separately from the contents of the ITO or the manner it was executed. Failure to name a place on the warrant "is not a mere matter of procedural defect, but so fundamental as to render the document of no legal effect.
Description of Thing(s) to be Seized
The warrant's description of things to be seized "operates as a guide for the officers conducting the search."
The justice of the peace loses jurisdiction where the description is over-broad or too vague such that it essentially allows the officer to conduct a "carte blanche" search for any evidence within the premises.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadi..._Practice/Search_and_Seizure/Warrant_Searches
Arnie M
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2013
- Messages
- 2,079
- Reaction score
- 1,920
Scratching my head about something for the past 2 weeks .... can you help
Remember the picture of the big yellow backhoe (trackhoe) with the name O'Connell on it ?
https://twitter.com/trevorjdunn/status/334422275145224192/photo/1
There was a picture of it digging in a swamp , yet in all the aerial pictures of the farm I have never been able to find either the spot or the swamp or any sign of fresh digging
And LE have not given any focus on such an area.
Like I said , scratching my head about the location of the digging. Anyone know ?
It must be a slow news day .... I am starting to quote my own posts ...
It looks to me like the large trackhoe was in a clearing or on a trail in the woods .... still trying to figure out where !!!!
Anyone else notice the vehicle trail in the woods .... I circled them in the pictures below ..... maybe that is where the backhoe was working .... and come to think of it maybe the incinerator was parked there too .... would be a nice hiding spot
Attachments
Snoofo
New Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2013
- Messages
- 5,673
- Reaction score
- 0
BBM - IMO reason being no communication between HPS and TPS between first two visits (per Hamilton Spec) and finally communication between second and third (per MSM and previously posted here, but can't remember which one and sorry can't check this a.m.)
Was the first search on the farm really over as soon as they found TB, because I seem to recall HPS being there a few days longer than that? I do not agree that they had no further need to search once they found his body, I maintain that part of their due diligence is to also search for a murder weapon and other evidence possibly connected to the crime. I have to disagree with the theory that the barn was not searched because it is not part of the farmland, because as it is stated in the paragraph above, it is still part of the property, and i agree that they were searching the property. I feel that this theory also ignores the fact that LE could have gotten a warrant specifically for the barn if the warrants to search the property did not for some reason include the barn.
For example, when the first search team spent 25 minutes in the barn, (or merely walked through it, as was suggested above), if they had seen something suspicious, they could have gotten their warrants extended or revised or had whole new warrants drawn up. Which again really leaves me asking why the first search team a) didn't see all those barrels, and b) didn't wonder if something possibly relevant could have been hidden under all that hay. To say that HPS didn't search the barn because they didn't have a warrant for it, would then make me wonder how they then had the right to enter it at all, let alone spend 25 minutes in it.
To me it does not seem like a big mystery, LE either had a warrant to enter the barn when they spent 25 minutes there on the first search, or they didn't. If they didn't, they could have gotten one. Either way, it only seems natural to me that they should have been curious then what could have been hidden under the hay or in the barrels.
- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 39,314
- Reaction score
- 117,339
swedie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2011
- Messages
- 5,472
- Reaction score
- 279
BBM Respectfully asking, if it's not a mystery to you then, did they have a search warrant for the barn on the first search or not, do you know? As I've stated with all my posts it's JMO. I am speculating and trying to justify LE's actions. Yes a reporter claimed 25 minutes and another claimed IIRC, five minute. I don't think they know with certainty how long LE were in the barn. For all we know they missed seeing an officer or two or three coming out of the barn at the end of the day. Cannot always take everything as factual coming from reporters IMHO.
We don't know what instrumentation LE used in their first search of the barn, what or if anything was found, whether they moved hay around or probed into it do we? In regards to the barrels, seems at point and time according to reports LE were right to come to the conclusion the barrels were irrelevant in TB's investigation and even in LB's investigation. So with that, whose to say LE missed anything.
If you haven't read the link regarding search warrants, it would be very beneficial for you to do so but that is JMO to understand the intricacies of search warrants. LE and the judge or JOP have to very careful about how their investigation is carried out. It is done methodically and not without due cause. We do not know whether LE asked for a search warrant for the barn or not. Keep in mind, these are ongoing cases. I believe LE were given specific information which lead them to the bush on DM's property. Possible example being; pictures of the incinerator and/or of the deceased. The warrant for the hangar was given to collect evidence for example; the place where TB's truck was taken to and the seats taken out, the truck cleaned up and loaded into DM's trailer, of course this is JMO and speculation.
The search of the barn may prove to be irrelevant all around in any case related to DM. It is pure speculation to assume LE botched the case because we do not know for fact at this point the finer details, whether a search warrant was issued for the barn, how in depth they searched the barn, how they plan and carry out their investigation. LE cannot afford to take chances of botching these very serious cases. Better to take cautions and their time to get it right the first time as there is no turning back once serious mistakes are made. ALL MOO.
Issuing of Warrant: Reasonable and Probable Grounds
The Charter requires that for all warrants police must provide "reasonable and probable grounds, established upon oath, to believe that an offence has been committed and that there is evidence to be found at the place of the search"
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadi..._Practice/Search_and_Seizure/Warrant_Searches
“Our investigation led to the identification of several locations related to the accused Dellen Millard. Authorized searches took place and evidence has been recovered,” Chief De Caire said, and added that “this investigation is long from over.”
http://m.1310news.com/2013/05/14/bosma-dead-hamilton-police-say/
- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 39,314
- Reaction score
- 117,339
For those who think LE can get a search warrant based on curiosity or suspicion, you might want to read R v Kelly ... even though the marijuana was found in his residence, his conviction was overturned on appeal because the ITO that resulted in the warrant being granted was based on suspicion with no initial reasonable grounds to believe that evidence would be found therein.
http://www.gnb.ca/cour/03COA1/Decisions/2010/December2010/Kelly-DrapeauCJNB-judgment-December6.pdf
The above is just one of many examples.
We have no knowledge what specific factual (or believed to be factual) information led to the first TPS ground search with GPR. We have no knowledge of what "new information" resulted in the more recent barn search. We have no knowledge of what was contained in any of the relevant ITOs or what specific authorizations/limitations were contained in the warrants that were granted.
The barrels ultimately are deemed to have no evidentiary value. IMO, continued speculation that LE overlooked or dismissed the barrels serves no useful purpose other than attempts to besmirch LE.
http://www.gnb.ca/cour/03COA1/Decisions/2010/December2010/Kelly-DrapeauCJNB-judgment-December6.pdf
The above is just one of many examples.
We have no knowledge what specific factual (or believed to be factual) information led to the first TPS ground search with GPR. We have no knowledge of what "new information" resulted in the more recent barn search. We have no knowledge of what was contained in any of the relevant ITOs or what specific authorizations/limitations were contained in the warrants that were granted.
The barrels ultimately are deemed to have no evidentiary value. IMO, continued speculation that LE overlooked or dismissed the barrels serves no useful purpose other than attempts to besmirch LE.
robynhood
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 1,058
- Reaction score
- 6
...JMO EXCELLENT post by swede an Silly Billy( above #638 & 637)...IMO you both are precisely correct ...I feel in saying we DO NOT KNOW the reason as to "WHY "..police went back to that barn with another search warrant granted ...all that was told ..was Police found NEW INFO that made them go back...IMO new info will naturally arise as this is an investigation in PROGRESS,,new forensic could be found from the LAb. ...video surveillance from cameras neighbor was mention...IMO so many NEW variables arise in an on going investigation shall constantly change the direction LE will take ...of course this is JMO again too....robynhood.
- Status