General Discussion and Theories #3

[Blomquist]

I've brought up Randy Allen Taylor before. He's jailed on charges of abducting a teenage girl. According to his lawyer, all LE has on him is a single hair, and having used the same gas station the same day as the vic. No body, no crime scene, no weapon. But he's old, looks quite rough around the edges, and is definitely "lower class". Needless to say no one is defending him in those threads.

I think for some of us this case is a local case and therefore there is a sense of being close to the area... At first I was of the same mind, that the accused had to be guilty as he was seen by RBEG...but after looking deeper I saw that it was a really strange case all around... from many standpoints.
I could not care less how handsome Dellen is.... infact I don`t remember the last time I looked at a pic of him.... this is about fairness for me...and making sure the right people are `detained`...

Also time is a factor for people... I dont have time to sleuth every deserving case...so I stick with the one that is close to my area.... nothing more , nothing less.... HTH

 

[cansleuther]

I think for some of us this case is a local case and therefore there is a sense of being close to the area.

Not to mention that the local gossip is often quite different from what is reported in MSM - although not being from the area myself, I cannot say if that is the case here.

 

[ArianeEmory]

In US cases you can usually get plugged into the local gossip (most of it ugly) via FB and news article comments. If you don't typically get that in Canada...well, it's probably just as well, it brings out the worst in everyone.

 

[Blomquist]

The point that they have left the 'crime scene' unattended for months allowing opportunity for anyone to roam over and contaminate any potential evidence has been totally missed... even though even your good self is a witness to this !!!!!!!. I happen to find this unacceptable and if I were LB's parents I would have a few questions for the TPS....just sayin'...[\quote]


AD and you both I believe, stated that LE searched and searched and didn't see or couldn't see any evidence previously or looked several times but saw nothing. Yet others can covertly enter and "find" it and "destroy" it without LEAVING evidence? Or remove it, without leaving evidence?

Key words = opportunity
any potential

Some people are experts at not leaving a trail......kwim

 

[Blomquist]

AD, You referenced the link of yours.

<modsnip> see a difference between a barn and a farm?
A search warrant is a document with specific items looked for in a certain area based on sworn testimony and signed under oath considering probable cause.

<modsnip> why they didn't excavate the whole farm? They had a warrant for a defined area.

<modnsip> see the difference in "seeing a body" and what is going on there the last 5 days? Obviously there was no recognizable body as they are searching for small evidence and a warrant approved for looking for a body isn't necessarily like one spelling out permission for semen, blood, hair.

<modsnip> That in order to infringe on the security of person, to search for a body, is vastly different than a warrant for miniscule evidence and is spelled out as such.

<modsnip> can see the specificity a search warrant would need between a body and a drop of blood wrt LE's legal parameters to search?

I thought semen blood and hair were all components of a body ( I knew that biology teacher was useless)

Can you define what `security of the person`means to you please

 

[Sillybilly]

The focus was on finding a body or bodies...so why on earth would they not search the barn??? Give me one good reason why not TIA

<snip>

Big difference between looking for an intact or semi-intact body on 100 acres or looking for DNA (for example) on that same 100 acres. Without a body, or specific indications as to where a body had been, where on earth (literally) was LE supposed to start looking for DNA? Apparently at the time the barn was first searched, there were no obvious bodies there, nor were there indications that evidence of a body having been there might exist. Meanwhile new information has come to LE's attention to indicate that something nefarious may have happened in the barn, thus the attention that is being paid to it now.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Well I guess the context in which I was talking about the barn and the search was misunderstood. My thoughts about the small amount of time in the barn back in May was because, since they had found TB on the farm, and claimed to not know where or how he was killed, or even if the incinerator was used or not, I would have thought they would have looked for more evidence at the time. Or, if necessary, get a further search warrant at that time to look deeper.
JMO

 

[Carli]

Well I guess the context in which I was talking about the barn and the search was misunderstood. My thoughts about the small amount of time in the barn back in May was because, since they had found TB on the farm, and claimed to not know where or how he was killed, or even if the incinerator was used or not, I would have thought they would have looked for more evidence at the time. Or, if necessary, get a further search warrant at that time to look deeper.
JMO

Not to put too fine a point on it, AD, but actually as I recall, back in May LE informed that a balance of probability indicated that otherwise unidentifiable remains found were those of TB.

In the intervening months we've been treated to lots of palaver, innuendo, conjecture, shocking agendas and well organized street theatre, imo, but for my own part, I continue to await expert sworn testimony that the ashes found were, in fact, those of TB. MOO.

 

[dizzy1]

Well I guess the context in which I was talking about the barn and the search was misunderstood. My thoughts about the small amount of time in the barn back in May was because, since they had found TB on the farm, and claimed to not know where or how he was killed, or even if the incinerator was used or not, I would have thought they would have looked for more evidence at the time. Or, if necessary, get a further search warrant at that time to look deeper.
JMO

IMO, This recent search is in regards to LB. In May, LE hadn't connected the dots in regards to the 'relationship' between DM and LB. New evidence has come to light, which gave them reason to retun. As AA stated previously, LE need a separate warrant to do an in depth search of the barn, with specific reasons why they believe there may be evidence there. Possibly, if they had found some evidence in the barn relating to LB previously, but didn't have things spelled out properly in the warrant at the time, the evidence may be deemed inadmissable. Since most likely at this time, they aren't searching for a body, but DNA evidence, possibly clothing of LB's, or other personal effects, they need a specific warrant stating that. Nobody wants the evidence they find to be deemed inadmissable, if he's guilty of having something to do with her disappearance, so LE is covering all bases before they rush into the barn, and start rummaging around, randomly looking for clues. JMO

 

[MsSherlock]

1. I know the rules, thanks. I specifically wanted to address Ms. Sherlock in this instance because I felt the topic needed to be addressed for once and for all or else it would just pop up again and again.

2. Again, that is your conclusion, that he is better looking than those other guys so that's why the strong defence. Seriously, if you think 5 people on WS exploring reasons of how he and possibly MS could have been framed is an army of sorts behind the guy, well maybe you should reconsider. To say nobody has given reasons, we have, but those reasons fall upon deaf ears when those who ask start humming their own tune while the reason is given. I have said this before many times - I think he was somehow fooled and has been taken advantage of for quite some time. I dont think he was fooled because he was easy on the eyes, nor was it because he was so smart. Since I don't find him as guilty as many others, I don't want to insult a possibly innocent man with what I truly think of him, because what I think is not the most flattering of things. I think he got mixed up with criminals and I think he is possibly guilty of lesser charges somewhere along the way that don't involve TB, but I don't think he set out to kill or physically harm a person on May 6. I could change my mind if I was a juror and the holes were filled completely, but at the moment I do not find him guilty as charged. So how that has anything to do with looks, I don't know.

3. I did look at the case of R.A.Taylor not too long ago and I would probably very well defend him too, if there is no more to the evidence against him as you say, but honestly, I barely have enough time to keep up with the Bosma case and I'm too caught up in it to trade it in for another mid-way.

Another thing I have said before but must reiterate from time to time is that I find it quite offensive when posters strongly hint at the fact that those who defend one or more of the accused must not care about the victim. I will say again and again that wanting to explore every reason why they might have the wrong people, in my honest opinion, is more in search of justice for Tim than not. It was TB that brought me to WS. This last comment has nothing to do with AE's quoted comment, above. I just felt it needed to be said, because I'm getting a self-righteous tone from some as of late and the feeling that we defenders of the so-called "evil-doers" must be evil too.

Snoofo, first of all, thank you for referring me as a "good egg"!! In my primary profession, I make a living dealing with strangers, usually always alone, at places where no one knows where I am. FWIW, it's considered one of the highest risk jobs out there and people in my profession get murdered doing their job every year in North America. All the safety training I've had over the last few decades has dealt with our human nature to trust what we see and that usually starts with the strangers appearance. If those strangers are good looking, well dressed and claim to have a certain level of education or perhaps have a Dr. in front of their name, we automatically trust them more. It really has nothing to do with biases, it's actually a very primitive reaction.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...bout-why-beautiful-people-are-more-successful

Instructors will often touch on conditioning as well. One compared our trusting of strangers to dogs. Which dog should you be most concerned about? A poodle or a doberman? The answer should be both. Both are dogs and both have the ability to bite you, yet, we would tend to always trust the poodle more. So for me, I have absolutely no problem with anyone questioning DM's ability or motive for committing such a crime. From MSM reports, DM is good looking and apparently wealthy, so IMO, he may automatically have a bigger following thinking he's innocent simply because of our human nature. My concern is more towards slamming of LE without just cause. IMO, LE work within the confines of their particular bureaucracy and have a job to do. Without good LE there would be no law. Yes, there are the incompetent but IMO, they are certainly not the norm. It's just that MSM always lets us know when there is a bad apple. Yes, some people who are accused of a crime are innocent and some LE are incompetent, and some people are accused because of incompetent LE, BUT, not all accused are innocent because of incompetent LE. Over the last couple decades advancements in forensics have greatly reduced the number of innocent people accused because the DNA just didn't fit the bill. Just as in aviation, where we're trained to "trust the instruments", regardless of what our brain is telling us IMO the same holds water in crime investigations. LE must trust the forensic evidence and all we can do as onlookers is trust that the evidence will be collected, processed and presented properly. MOO

That leads me to my conclusion. IMO DM being good looking and wealthy, has a natural advantage of getting bail. Back in May, DP was preparing for a bail hearing but charges were elevated. Several months have passed and DP is now saying for "Tactical" reasons he's not requesting bail. There have been no additional charges and DP does have a good portion of the disclosure, so IMHO, DP has gone from a Lawyer who truly feels he may be representing an innocent man to a Lawyer who is focused on getting as much evidence as possible thrown out and somehow getting the charges reduced to 2nd degree or manslaughter. JMHO

 

[puppyraiser]

It's thought by some people that there might have been an OC connection to this case. Recent speculation is that someone is talking and not just about the murder of TB but other aspects as well.

I've been following the news and have noted several big drug busts in recent months, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. This morning I read this: CBC News Alerts &#8207;@CBCAlerts 16m
Spanish police arrest 4 Hells Angels from Canada in cocaine bust. Allegedly tried to smuggle 500 kg of cocaine into country. #RCMP involved.

To those of you who are leaning towards an OC involvement, are you thinking Hells Angels or some other OC group?

 

[puppyraiser]

MADRID, Spain -- Four members of the Hells Angels have been arrested in northwest Spain for allegedly smuggling 500 kilograms of cocaine into the county with the aim of distributing it, the Interior Ministry said in a statement Saturday.

The statement said the men, all Canadians, were arrested near the coastal city of Pontevedra, where one had arrived by yacht, allegedly having sailed from Colombia with the drugs...

... The arrests were the result of collaboration between Spanish police and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, Canada's mounted police, EUROPOL and France's tax authority, the statement said.

The statement did not say when the arrests took place.



http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/4-canadian-hells-angels-arrested-in-spain-for-alleged-drug-smuggling-1.1454738




Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/4-cana...lleged-drug-smuggling-1.1454738#ixzz2esJlhCjI

 

[MsSherlock]

How was TB easy to subdue? He worked in construction or similar I believe , hardly sounds like a rag doll type to me...JMO

Blomquist, IMO, there could be ways to immobilize or subdue a person quickly regardless of how fit they were. Strangling, knife, chloroform, shooting (with or without a silencer) IMO, when I think about stabbing or strangling, it may actually be easier to immobilize a fit, trim person by these methods because they don't have as much adipose tissue. JMHO

 

[MsSherlock]

IMO, the proper warrants and proper collection of evidence is paramount. This is an unrelated case, but it does show the outcome of tips, warrants and evidence not being processed correctly. May be a long read, but this excerpt is taken from the last paragraph of the ruling-IMO, it speaks volumes for our rights as Canadians. JMHO, LE learn from cases like this and try very hard not to repeat their errors.

From the judges comments in rendering his decision:

This was a significant offence. The police uncovered a sophisticated operation and seized 350 plants, which the accused estimated to be valued at approximately $250,000.00. Nonetheless and despite not affecting the fairness of this trial, this evidence must be excluded. While excluding this evidence will result in the acquittal of a factually guilty person, allowing the evidence into this trial will cause greater damage to the administration of justice, on the totality of facts in this case.

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highli...sh=AAAAAQASTWFuaXNoZW4sIEhhbWlsdG9uAAAAAAAAAQ

 

[Juballee]

Blomquist, IMO, there could be ways to immobilize or subdue a person quickly regardless of how fit they were. Strangling, knife, chloroform, shooting (with or without a silencer) IMO, when I think about stabbing or strangling, it may actually be easier to immobilize a fit, trim person by these methods because they don't have as much adipose tissue. JMHO

If everyone is equally as easy to subdue regardless of how fit they are, then the theory that RBEG was too big to be victimized goes out the window.

 

[Juballee]

I think it is a little odd that LE either didn't see 54 barrels in May, or that at least one of them didn't have the same suspicion many here instantly jumped to:great place to hide another body or evidence. Once they found TB at the farm they didn't just pack up and leave, saying, 'Well, the warrant was only to search for a body, we can't get out our microscopes yet.' In my opinion they would have likely had permission in that warrant to continue looking for say, blood splatter or a murder weapon, or further victims. Which would make me wonder why they didn't look under they hay or in the barrels the first time.

If, as some suggest, they were waiting for lab results for further warrants to continue their search of the barn, I believe that they would have put up at least some crime scene tape warning the public not to cross it. Wouldn't that be cheaper and easier than hidden cameras? I would think hidden cameras would only be used if LE strongly suspected the third suspect would return after they were gone, to tamper with evidence. But I think that even in that situation that they would have put up some tape, so that they could prove that it was in fact still a crime scene that was being tampered with.

 

[stormy67]

In May, the crime had just occurred and evidence would have been fresh. A look around in the barn would be enough to notice if there had been recent activity in the barn - tracks in the dust, places with no dust that looked like something that had been there had been moved, items with no dust among dust covered items indicating they were recent additions to the barn, and many other indicators for recent activity or movement in the barn. In LEs defense, they were on the farm investigating a crime that had only just occurred and therefore, perhaps lack of evidence of recent activity inside the barn precluded it from more in depth investigation - IMHO

 

[Archangel7]

<modsnip> a warrant is a restriction of where and what can be searched/seized AND is a restriction on where LE can't search and what they can't seize, conversely, so to speak.

Seems easy to me to understand, and in plain language, not that complicated to understand unless I'm missing something.

If I swear an affidavit(ITO) and also on the warrant before a Judge exactly why, constitutionally, I am asking for the warrant to search a farm for a buried body in a geographic designated area in a particular field based on this item of probable cause that it's actually there, how can I justify to the Public or the Courts why I was in the barn? Even if I swore a warrant that I had reason to search 54 barrels on the lower level for a body, it doesn't automatically give me legal rights to look on the upper level or in the well or septic tank, etc, etc.
I could ask the judge for a blanket warrant for everywhere, looking for anything, but I know better and I think you do too.

I think it is a little odd that LE either didn't see 54 barrels in May, or that at least one of them didn't have the same suspicion many here instantly jumped to:great place to hide another body or evidence. Once they found TB at the farm they didn't just pack up and leave, saying, 'Well, the warrant was only to search for a body, we can't get out our microscopes yet.' In my opinion they would have likely had permission in that warrant to continue looking for say, blood splatter or a murder weapon, or further victims. Which would make me wonder why they didn't look under they hay or in the barrels the first time.

If, as some suggest, they were waiting for lab results for further warrants to continue their search of the barn, I believe that they would have put up at least some crime scene tape warning the public not to cross it. Wouldn't that be cheaper and easier than hidden cameras? I would think hidden cameras would only be used if LE strongly suspected the third suspect would return after they were gone, to tamper with evidence. But I think that even in that situation that they would have put up some tape, so that they could prove that it was in fact still a crime scene that was being tampered with.

 

[stormy67]

Wouldn't it follow then that if they discovered something in the barn or saw something suspicious that they would have filed for a warrant to search the barn in May?

Of course, I am talking about in relation to TBs case. They are now investigating LBs case which was not part of the investigation of the farm in May.

 

[Blomquist]

<modsnip> a warrant is a restriction of where and what can be searched/seized AND is a restriction on where LE can't search and what they can't seize, conversely, so to speak.

Seems easy to me to understand, and in plain language, not that complicated to understand unless I'm missing something.

If I swear an affidavit(ITO) and also on the warrant before a Judge exactly why, constitutionally, I am asking for the warrant to search a farm for a buried body in a geographic designated area in a particular field based on this item of probable cause that it's actually there, how can I justify to the Public or the Courts why I was in the barn? Even if I swore a warrant that I had reason to search 54 barrels on the lower level for a body, it doesn't automatically give me legal rights to look on the upper level or in the well or septic tank, etc, etc.
I could ask the judge for a blanket warrant for everywhere, looking for anything, but I know better and I think you do too.

A warrant usually identifies the `property`to be searched. It usually does not limit to upstairs or downstairs or the ladies chamber imo It says the property as a whole !!!

Now lets take a warrant for a grow op that gets found in the basement of a home...do we honestly expect the warrant to just say `basement` or would they be running around the house, the garage etc and emptying every canister, cupboard and cereal box along the way....I think we all know the answer to that even if we have no inside info.

It`s not a blanket warrant...it is a warrant for property which encompasses the whole property not sections of it. What if a body was found hanging in a tree...does that mean the warrant was specifically for the tree....

LE will often overstep warrants imo and will search cars and computers that have not been included in the warrant. So imo why would they only check parts of a property that a warrant gives them access to......

I will look for examples and templates online , and post if can find a scrubbed version.