Harley in the Hangar: Chop Shop?

[SnooperDuper]

Honestly I think the reason that LE did not lay separate charges for the "chop shop" is that they want that evidence available within the TB trial. If there were "chop shop" charges they probably would be handled separately at this point and the information from that trial may not be admissible to the TB trial. So why not just hold the "chop shop" evidence to support the TB case? Why risk creating a situation where that evidence may become legally inadmissible?

I think the fact that no raft of charges related to theft and stolen property has been filed against DM and any of associates simply means DM was a small-timer or just introducing himself to the "chop shop" business. There is no big circle to bust. DM is it.

So, basically two factors driving no charges: the scope of the "chop shop" is very limited and focused on DM, and LE wants this evidence to support the TB case rather than spinning it off on its own as a separate trial.

Same deal with DM trafficking drugs to LB: limited scope, DM at the center, evidence best used to support the LB trial rather than attempting to make those charges stand on their own in a separate trial.

Same thing with the gun. and so on.

 

[Tamarind]

For all we know, one of the hangar elves might have taken some parts of the Harley home to his own garage in order to work on them. LE would then have more dirt on him than DM and could threaten the elf with charges if he did not testify against DM. So, no charges in exchange for the elf's testimony.

That sounds like a very corrupt little elf IMHO. :thinking:

I think the chop shop was a hobby not a business, more of a lemonade stand than a coffee shop.

Yes , maybe like the lemonade stand there were a lot of lemons, as there don't appear to be any vehicles or parts to sell or dismantle from what we have read/seen. JMO. Maybe they got thrown out with the trash. :thinking: :laughing:

I think DM was developing a criminal lifestyle, and thought of himself as quite a master criminal because he had daring. He casually crossed every moral line. The stolen Harley is just one small thing in a larger general pattern. IMO.

Where have you read that DM stole the HD ?

How would he develop a criminal lifestyle if he had nothing to do with the Harley ? Until such time as there may be a conviction he is not guilty of anything. IMO. I for one would be extremely dissatisfied if an innocent was currently being blamed for a crime they didn't commit. MOO

 

[Tamarind]

Exactly. There is no large "chop shop" operation IMO. No gangs, organized crime bosses, etc to form a conspiracy against DM for anything. All of DM's vehicles in those hangars were old vehicles revamped with "new" (stolen?) parts by him and his "employees". Except for the Yukon and the Ram. Which likely needed a new engine to guarantee it would make it to Baha hauling that trailer once again. It was a HOBBY that he enjoyed, hence why he would want to attempt to replace the engine in the Ram rather than spend money on someone else's used vehicle, that may also need some engine overhauling, or $80,000 minimum to get a new one with all the features of the red one. Better to get one for free first and see if they could merge the two trucks into one super hauling Ram truck, for fun.

I bet those hangar elves have some interesting stories.

MOO

I highly doubt stealing a truck for an engine was DM's intention. I suppose he also figured he would kill someone in the process just to get that truck !? That doesn't sound like a simple process to me, and not something that makes any sense in my opinion. With DM willing to buy a new property worth thousands on May 7th 2013, I doubt it ever crossed his mind to steal a paltry ( in comparison) truck worth just a fraction of the price of that property. Just MOO.

As for the elves, they may be trying to save their own little butts if they have been really naughty elves IMO

 

[Tamarind]

Honestly I think the reason that LE did not lay separate charges for the "chop shop" is that they want that evidence available within the TB trial. If there were "chop shop" charges they probably would be handled separately at this point and the information from that trial may not be admissible to the TB trial. So why not just hold the "chop shop" evidence to support the TB case? Why risk creating a situation where that evidence may become legally inadmissible?

Hmm well what if the hypothetical chop shop charges were to stick and there was a conviction? That would be allowed into the evidence and even if by some chance it weren't, the high profile nature of the case to date would cause the chop shop charges to be all over the press. I don't see how the hypothetical chop shop can be brought into the Bosma case at all without any real facts and convictions to back it up. Any juror with an ounce of intelligence will be looking for facts about everything, not innuendo, speculation or inference. JMO

I think the fact that no raft of charges related to theft and stolen property has been filed against DM and any of associates simply means DM was a small-timer or just introducing himself to the "chop shop" business. There is no big circle to bust. DM is it.

How can that be without any proof of that claim?

So, basically two factors driving no charges: the scope of the "chop shop" is very limited and focused on DM, and LE wants this evidence to support the TB case rather than spinning it off on its own as a separate trial.

How does it focus on DM? Where is proof of a chop shop?

Same deal with DM trafficking drugs to LB: limited scope, DM at the center, evidence best used to support the LB trial rather than attempting to make those charges stand on their own in a separate trial.

How is DM at the centre, based on what? Facts?

Same thing with the gun. and so on.

Proof will be needed for everything.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Hmm well what if the hypothetical chop shop charges were to stick and there was a conviction? That would be allowed into the evidence and even if by some chance it weren't, the high profile nature of the case to date would cause the chop shop charges to be all over the press.

And the evidence would be inadmissible and a jury would have to ignore it. How does that help a prosecutor legally convict DM? Why gamble, why give the criminal the edge and allow him to fight every little facet of his case in separate trials? This is why LE may want to hold on to the evidence of the stolen Harley broken down into parts and stolen trailer re-registered under new ownership and details, that DM had in his possession in the hangar, to support the TB trial. It would ensure the crown could present evidence of a pattern of possessing stolen property.

I don't see how the hypothetical chop shop can be brought into the Bosma case at all without any real facts and convictions to back it up. Any juror with an ounce of intelligence will be looking for facts about everything, not innuendo, speculation or inference. JMO

That's right, in court they will not use words like "chop shop". They will simply point out, that on three occasions, DM was in possession of stolen property worth more than $5k. It shows a pattern of behaviour.

How can that be without any proof of that claim?

If there were other people involved and LE could make a case of it, they would surely spin these charges off into a separate trial and deal with everyone involved. Since everyone involved is DM, they don't have to do this and the evidence is best used to support the current trial of the murder of TB.

How does it focus on DM? Where is proof of a chop shop?

How is DM at the centre, based on what? Facts?

Proof will be needed for everything.

Youuu bet!

 

[Tamarind]

.

The very first thing Dellen was charged with was theft over $5000
There could be additional counts , but he does not have to be charged again.

By default he is then also charged with possession of stolen goods ... he still had the truck

Did he?

... and if he has additional possessions they can just add them to the list.

Just because every detail hasn't been reported yet means nothing in a large multi faceted case like this .

We haven't been told about many facets have we? Most facets point to one, which is where the suspicion comes into play as far as I am concerned.

I do not think he has been charged with purchasing an illegally trafficked firearm , but I am sure he will be , because we know the seller has been charged

Interesting point. He hasn't been charged with buying the gun or being in possession of the gun. I wonder why? Maybe he didn't buy it, have it or more importantly he didn't use it.

I acknowledge my post is a complete waste of time

This subject has been beaten to death so many times we could get charged with murdering a dead horse.

Yes there are many repetitive posts, driving a point home regardless of whether the horse is dead or not. :coldout:

lets hope each viewpoint can help in someway.

 

[Tamarind]

And the evidence would be inadmissible and a jury would have to ignore it. How does that help a prosecutor legally convict DM? Why gamble, why give the criminal the edge and allow him to fight every little facet of his case in separate trials? This is why LE may want to hold on to the evidence of the stolen Harley broken down into parts and stolen trailer re-registered under new ownership and details, that DM had in his possession in the hangar, to support the TB trial. It would ensure the crown could present evidence of a pattern of possessing stolen property.

It only means that they can infer IMO. Such inferences will not hold much weight with an intelligent jury. JMO

That's right, in court they will not use words like "chop shop". They will simply point out, that on three occasions, DM was in possession of stolen property worth more than $5k. It shows a pattern of behaviour.

He was not in possession literally. So that will be a hill the prosecution will have to climb. I see no pattern.

If there were other people involved and LE could make a case of it, they would surely spin these charges off into a separate trial and deal with everyone involved. Since everyone involved is DM, they don't have to do this and the evidence is best used to support the current trial of the murder of TB.

That is not true. IMO. If LE wants to pin the blame on one they will. Whether it will stick is another matter. I notice that you continually say that DM is the ONLY one involved. Have you forgotten about MS or have I missed an important press release?

Youuu bet!

No not usually. But I might consider it once.

 

[SnooperDuper]

It only means that they can infer IMO. Such inferences will not hold much weight with an intelligent jury. JMO

Well let's just hope the jury is full of regular Joes and Janes that can put 2 + 2 together.

He was not in possession literally. So that will be a hill the prosecution will have to climb. I see no pattern.

DM was literally in possession: the stolen items were inside of his possessions, the hangar and trailer that he held the key and ownership of. What do you mean, he wasn't touching it?

That is not true. IMO. If LE wants to pin the blame on one they will. Whether it will stick is another matter. I notice that you continually say that DM is the ONLY one involved. Have you forgotten about MS or have I missed an important press release?

What we are talking about is strategy. The Crown decides which charges they will pursue in order for prosecutors to have the best outcome at trial. They don't have to pursue charges that they are unlikely to win on their own, isolated from context, in a trial of their own. They simply use that evidence to support the charges that they do pursue. They seem to be pursuing DM. MS faces fewer serious charges.

No not usually. But I might consider it once.

Well hot tip: put your tax refund on the Crown.

 

[Tamarind]

Well let's just hope the jury is full of regular Joes and Janes that can put 2 + 2 together.

Well many people put two and two together and get a host of different answers from what can tell. So I'll just hope that the jury is intelligent

DM was literally in possession: the stolen items were inside of his possessions, the hangar and trailer that he held the key and ownership of. What do you mean, he wasn't touching it?

If someone steals in the workplace, is the thief at fault or his boss?

What we are talking about is strategy. The Crown decides which charges they will pursue in order for prosecutors to have the best outcome at trial. They don't have to pursue charges that they are unlikely to win on their own, isolated from context, in a trial of their own. They simply use that evidence to support the charges that they do pursue. They seem to be pursuing DM. MS faces fewer serious charges.

Yes I am aware of how the crown works. They take the path of least resistance, not necessarily based on fact, they often rely on speculation and inference and they use case law to back up where possible. It is not always possible as only certain types of inference and speculation are acceptable and other case law is used by the defense to refute these type of situations.

I think they are pursuing MS and DM. It is just a few opinions that seem to say its more DM IMO.
I don't believe they can bring in criminal activity that they are blatantly ignoring. How will that look to a jury? If criminal activity is sanctified by the crown by its condoning of it, that says a lot about the crown IMHO. I think I will wait until the trial to see what the crown really has or doesn't have. MOO

Well hot tip: put your tax refund on the Crown.

Not with the present state of disclosure, no can do !

 

[SnooperDuper]

Well many people put two and two together and get a host of different answers from what can tell. So I'll just hope that the jury is intelligent


If someone steals in the workplace, is the thief at fault or his boss?


Yes I am aware of how the crown works. They take the path of least resistance, not necessarily based on fact, they often rely on speculation and inference and they use case law to back up where possible. It is not always possible as only certain types of inference and speculation are acceptable and other case law is used by the defense to refute these type of situations.

I think they are pursuing MS and DM. It is just a few opinions that seem to say its more DM IMO.
I don't believe they can bring in criminal activity that they are blatantly ignoring. How will that look to a jury? If criminal activity is sanctified by the crown by its condoning of it, that says a lot about the crown IMHO. I think I will wait until the trial to see what the crown really has or doesn't have. MOO


Not with the present state of disclosure, no can do !

I think you mean sanctioned not sanctified.

 

[Tamarind]

I think you mean sanctioned not sanctified.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sanctify



: to make (something) holy

: to give official acceptance or approval to (something)

sanc·ti·fiedsanc·ti·fy·ing
Full Definition of SANCTIFY
1
: to set apart to a sacred purpose or to religious use : consecrate
2
: to free from sin : purify
3
a : to impart or impute sacredness, inviolability, or respect to
b : to give moral or social sanction to

No I meant what I said, thank you

 

[swedie]

I have my doubts there was this big chop shop business going on at the hangar, but the fact that MM's stolen HD and trailer were found amongst the allegedly many stolen car parts (and suggestively stolen vehicles), tells me DM was up to no good period. The fact DM showed interest in test driving Dodge pickups, was identified by SB as one of the males who showed up on their property, (business owner also identified DM...and his tattoo), DM's Yukon being the vehicle identified by LE, which following TB's truck, and then lo and behold TB's truck was found in his trailer, in his mother's driveway, TB's charred remains are found on DM's farmland, allegedly burnt in the incinerator purchased through MA (coincidental at the time LB disappeared), just adds weight and solidifies DM was up to no good.

Whatever the reason was for DM taking test drives, whether it was because he either wanted a Dodge truck without having to pay for it, or the test drives were just an excuse to find his next murder victim, or perhaps both, speculations will become reality during trial undoubtedly.

When considering the chop shop, whether it existed or not, it pales in comparison considering DM is charged with three murders. To try and argue away we cannot or should not rely on LE words or take into consideration consistent reports from MSM on these cases is just an excuse to defend the accused at every turn. We do not have to wait until the trials to find out the "facts" as we have already been given many facts, just that they have not been presented in a court of law along with the abundance of other facts LE like to keep from the public and for justifiable reasons.

DM is only considered innocent until proven guilty in regards to our judicial system but it does not mean he is innocent, nor do we have to take the stance he is innocent. If our judicial system flipped it and said everyone is guilty until proven innocent, would that change some peoples' views and opinions about this case? Absolutely not. So why should we be encouraged to take into consideration the judicial rule, innocent until proven guilty when our logic tells us otherwise. ALL MOO.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Well many people put two and two together and get a host of different answers from what can tell. So I'll just hope that the jury is intelligent


If someone steals in the workplace, is the thief at fault or his boss?

What has that got to do with DM possessing stolen property? Most people steal from the workplace, not bring stolen goods into the workplace.

Yes I am aware of how the crown works. They take the path of least resistance, not necessarily based on fact, they often rely on speculation and inference and they use case law to back up where possible. It is not always possible as only certain types of inference and speculation are acceptable and other case law is used by the defense to refute these type of situations.

The Crown...not necessarily based on fact...whaaat? The Crown is corrupt?

I think they are pursuing MS and DM. It is just a few opinions that seem to say its more DM IMO.
I don't believe they can bring in criminal activity that they are blatantly ignoring. How will that look to a jury? If criminal activity is sanctified by the crown by its condoning of it, that says a lot about the crown IMHO. I think I will wait until the trial to see what the crown really has or doesn't have. MOO


Not with the present state of disclosure, no can do !

You think the Crown sanctifies and condones DM's actions just because they are not laying down every applicable charge in the book? The Crown is corrupt?

 

[Tamarind]

What has that got to do with DM possessing stolen property? Most people steal from the workplace, not bring stolen goods into the workplace.



The Crown...not necessarily based on fact...whaaat? The Crown is corrupt?

That is not what I said. What I said is the crown very often relies on speculation and inference. This is a fact. It is what they do and there is case law to help them to a point. There is also other case law that helps the defense to identify exactly which inferences are admissible in court.

You think the Crown sanctifies and condones DM's actions just because they are not laying down every applicable charge in the book? The Crown is corrupt?

Again that is NOT WHAT I SAID.

I said, that I doubt a jury will look favourably on anything that the crown uses that is criminal and hasn't been treated as such. With respect, would you mind not twisting my words and suggesting at every opportunity that my use of certain words is not accurate when they are totally accurate. I overlook so many incorrectly used words as I read posts, as I think it is rude to keep berating people. Thank you.

 

[swedie]

Again that is NOT WHAT I SAID.

I said, that I doubt a jury will look favourably on anything that the crown uses that is criminal and hasn't been treated as such. With respect, would you mind not twisting my words and suggesting at every opportunity that my use of certain words is not accurate when they are totally accurate. I overlook so many incorrectly used words as I read posts, as I think it is rude to keep berating people. Thank you.

BBM - Could you rephrase this for me Tamarind please? I'm just not quite getting what you mean by your statement? TIA.

 

[Tamarind]

If you can use one charge to cover other similar crimes, every criminal would want that deal. Steal as many things as you want and only face one count and one charge? That would just encourage crime sprees, realistically, like an all you can eat crime buffet.

As it is pointed out above, LE may have suspected a chop shop in the beginning, but have had over 2 years to investigate and still did not see fit to press charges against DM for the theft of the Harley, the trailer or any other vehicles. If LE can't prove who did it but want to charge someone anyway, why didn't they already? We know know that LE knows the name of the person that the trailer was registered to when it was stolen, and still DM was not charged with stealing it. That would lead people to believe that either DM wasn't the one that it was registered to, or that LE are incompetent, and I choose to believe the first option, personally.

The photos of cars and trucks in pieces were photos from another place and another time, they do not represent the MillardAir hanger in 2012 in any way. The photos of the new hanger looked completely different, gleaming and sparse. It would be quite a leap to say that the older photos of a different location are more representative and relevant than the new photos of the actual place, in my opinion.

Wasn't SS also employed while WM was still alive and no doubt a regular attendee at the hanger? To insinuate that DM was running a chop shop with someone who is not named as a suspect in anything is a bad enough accusation, but that would also mean that WM had to have been in on it too, since it was happening right under his nose for years, and in different locations, according to this insinuation.

If business as usual happened when WM was still alive, continued after his death, and was reinstated a few days after DM was arrested, in full view of LE who were no doubt continuing their investigation at the time, I doubt that 'business as usual' had been at all nefarious. LE would not have allowed an illegal business to continue as usual, that wouldn't make sense.

I'm curious why anyone would want to convert one vehicle to another nearly identical vehicle if you would need pretty much a whole new vehicle for all the parts, when it would be far easier just to trade in one for the other without going through all the intensive physical labour and expense involved? Especially if time was of the essence. Chopping and altering vehicles is not illegal, just the stealing part is.

The facts remain that there is no proof of a chop shop at the hanger and no charges related to a chop shop involving DM that we know of.

All my opinion only, again, except for the facts.

Wanted to say that this post was very well thought out and explained well in my opinion.

 

[Tamarind]

BBM - Could you rephrase this for me Tamarind please? I'm just not quite getting what you mean by your statement? TIA.

It is self explanatory but if you like I will rearrange it for you.

IF the crown brings evidence by way of things that are criminal, but have been condoned by LE ie.without charges laid, the jury will not view it favourably IMO.


It will also look like an afterthought and ominous if they try to lay charges 2+ years later. All MOO HTH

 

[SnooperDuper]

If you can use one charge to cover other similar crimes, every criminal would want that deal. Steal as many things as you want and only face one count and one charge? That would just encourage crime sprees, realistically, like an all you can eat crime buffet.

For that matter, why wasn't anyone charged with possession of stolen property/possession of property obtained by crime when TB's truck was found?

As it is pointed out above, LE may have suspected a chop shop in the beginning, but have had over 2 years to investigate and still did not see fit to press charges against DM for the theft of the Harley, the trailer or any other vehicles. If LE can't prove who did it but want to charge someone anyway, why didn't they already? We know know that LE knows the name of the person that the trailer was registered to when it was stolen, and still DM was not charged with stealing it. That would lead people to believe that either DM wasn't the one that it was registered to, or that LE are incompetent, and I choose to believe the first option, personally.

(2) In proceedings in respect of an offence under subsection (1), evidence that a person has in his possession a motor vehicle the vehicle identification number of which has been wholly or partially removed or obliterated or a part of a motor vehicle being a part bearing a vehicle identification number that has been wholly or partially removed or obliterated is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that the motor vehicle or part, as the case may be, was obtained, and that such person had the motor vehicle or part, as the case may be, in his possession knowing that it was obtained,

(a) by the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment;

http://www.yourlaws.ca/criminal-code-canada/354-possession-property-obtained-crime

Seeing as DM had a Harley in the hangar with no VIN other than the one MM wrote under the seat...and the word of the law above...yeah, you wonder why LE has chosen not to bother with this one. Perhaps because the maximum sentence is only 10 years and LE have bigger fish to fry? DM's already put enough pressure on the legal system with the TB, WM, LB cases, CN's case and the 3 M's gun case?

The photos of cars and trucks in pieces were photos from another place and another time, they do not represent the MillardAir hanger in 2012 in any way. The photos of the new hanger looked completely different, gleaming and sparse. It would be quite a leap to say that the older photos of a different location are more representative and relevant than the new photos of the actual place, in my opinion.

Wasn't SS also employed while WM was still alive and no doubt a regular attendee at the hanger? To insinuate that DM was running a chop shop with someone who is not named as a suspect in anything is a bad enough accusation, but that would also mean that WM had to have been in on it too, since it was happening right under his nose for years, and in different locations, according to this insinuation.

Knowing about a crime is not a crime - only participating in it is.

If business as usual happened when WM was still alive, continued after his death, and was reinstated a few days after DM was arrested, in full view of LE who were no doubt continuing their investigation at the time, I doubt that 'business as usual' had been at all nefarious. LE would not have allowed an illegal business to continue as usual, that wouldn't make sense.

I'm curious why anyone would want to convert one vehicle to another nearly identical vehicle if you would need pretty much a whole new vehicle for all the parts, when it would be far easier just to trade in one for the other without going through all the intensive physical labour and expense involved? Especially if time was of the essence. Chopping and altering vehicles is not illegal, just the stealing part is.

It's probably easier to move your custom fog lights, roll bar and all that over to the stolen vehicle than move the engine and all that to the legit vehicle. DM already had practice removing VINs from the Harley.

The facts remain that there is no proof of a chop shop at the hanger and no charges related to a chop shop involving DM that we know of.

All my opinion only, again, except for the facts.

Well there was just this chopped up Harley and a hot trailer. There may not have been charges laid, but that doesn't mean that it won't figure in the TB trial.

 

[swedie]

It is self explanatory but if you like I will rearrange it for you.

IF the crown brings evidence by way of things that are criminal, but have been condoned by LE ie.without charges laid, the jury will not view it favourably IMO.


It will also look like an afterthought and ominous if they try to lay charges 2+ years later. All MOO HTH

Thanks and that's what I thought you meant but just wanted to valid and clarify.

Why would LE condone the Crown for using criminal evidence to do with the case? Isn't a trial about bringing forth as much evidence as possible to bolster their case, showing involvement in all criminal activities related to the case, guilt against the accused, in their effort to bring about justice for the victims and society?

How will a jury know the Crown laid the charges two or more years after the fact unless they have been following this case very closely like we do? BTW, if you get picked for jury duty, tell them you closely follow this case on WS, that'll definitely get you a pass from serving as a juror

The charges will be read during jury instructions. Just because additional charges have not been announced to the MSM, doesn't mean they have not been added or won't be added to the list.

There is nothing more ominous than three murder charges which will the the bigger focus in the jurors minds.

BTW the preliminary hearing, or is this case where the PH has been bypassed, the pretrial hearing is when evidence is sorted out as to what will be presented and what will be withheld during trial. It is during these hearings where additional charges can be applied. It is not too late for other charges to come out and should not be viewed as ominous, suspicious, or some afterthought by anyone. HTH and ALL MOO.

 

[Alethea Dice]

For that matter, why wasn't anyone charged with possession of stolen property/possession of property obtained by crime when TB's truck was found?

Someone was charged - DM - with theft over $5,000. The possession charge would come into it if there was no evidence that the same person committed the theft, but the person in possession knew that the item was stolen.

Seeing as DM had a Harley in the hangar with no VIN other than the one MM wrote under the seat...and the word of the law above...yeah, you wonder why LE has chosen not to bother with this one. Perhaps because the maximum sentence is only 10 years and LE have bigger fish to fry? DM's already put enough pressure on the legal system with the TB, WM, LB cases, CN's case and the 3 M's gun case?

I'm sure the penalty for breaching a court order is also a lesser sentence, but that didn't stop them from charging MS. Unless DM has possession of the gun and has been charged with possession of an illegal weapon, it isn't him who put that pressure on the legal system. You can blame the 3 M's for that one.

Knowing about a crime is not a crime - only participating in it is.

But if there was a chop shop, whoever was helping to chop the vehicles would have been participating in it.

It's probably easier to move your custom fog lights, roll bar and all that over to the stolen vehicle than move the engine and all that to the legit vehicle. DM already had practice removing VINs from the Harley.

No doubt. Has there been any information released to indicate that the engine in the red Ram was no longer of use?

Well there was just this chopped up Harley and a hot trailer. There may not have been charges laid, but that doesn't mean that it won't figure in the TB trial.

If there were, or were going to be charges laid, for the Harley and trailer, they would have been laid by Toronto LE.

Waterloo Regional Police say the stolen vehicle investigation at the local hangar is being led by Hamilton Police. They'll only become involved if some of the parts or vehicles can be traced back to vehicles stolen within the region, said Insp. Kevin Thaler.

"Hamilton is there on that property under the authority of their warrant. Anything they find in there, as a courtesy, if they recognize it as stolen, they'll turn it over to the original agency," he said.

http://www.therecord.com/news-story/3250211-stolen-vehicles-found-inside-millard-s-airport-hangar/

I can't imagine why the TB case would stop them from laying charges for the Harley. Many times, other charges are not allowed in a current trial as it can prejudice the jury. If no charges are even laid, I wouldn't be surprised if that also would not be allowed at trial. The only reason I can think of that they may want to is to support the Crown's theory of a motive. Motive does not need to be proven. All they have to do, in the TB case, is prove that DM stole the truck, forcibly confined TB, and murdered him.

JMO