“This arrest is the direct result of traditional police work and although investigators were greatly assisted by technology, old fashioned techniques like knocking on doors and interviewing hundreds upon hundreds of people and conducting a thorough investigative canvas played a key role in the arrest of this suspect,” [according to the then-chief of police].
Apparently the suspect was arrested after arousing suspicion because he refused to provide a dna sample in a large sweep.
I imagine there must have been chemical evidence linked to the remains of the little girl, but I don’t know. Since he worked for MDS, I imagine that may have linked the killer to certain chemicals.
Interestingly, the next article on the same page, about the Cecilia Zhang murder, says
Of course, the manner in which Brière refused may have been what led the cops to become suspicious, not simply the fact that he refused.
This is a bit like the OP example, in that you are free to volunteer to do something (open your house to the police/provide DNA), but not doing so may make you look guilty.
I imagine legal cases about issues like this are still making their way through the courts in many countries!
What guarantee is there that they wont find something and misinterpret it? I have nothing to hide but they are humans and might find something that they will misunderstand. Once they have you in their sights they can make it miserable. Remember the" person of interest " in the Anthrax case? How about Jewell in the Atlanta Olympics bombing? Nope, I want as little to do with them as possible.
“Slippery slope” implies some hypothetical bad outcome that could happen in the future, Dio: you’re refusing to acknowledge the bad outcomes that are happening now. Again, Jewell, Nifong, et. al.
By the way, let me give you a little golf clap in honor of what your debating skills have devolved to. What’s next, “I know you are but what am I?”
I suspect a lot of things in this action by the police, one thing that I am pretty certain of is that the publicly stated reason is not the whole truth. I don’t have anything profound to have but my thoughts…
The police have “an inkling” (i.e a gut feeling not rising to reasonable suspicion) that the guilty party is within the search area - and the search is just a strategy to see this persons house, without seeming to single him / her out
The police don’t actually expect to find anything incriminating per se, but are more interested in observing people’s reactions while they are poking around the house - is the person apparently more nervous than you would expect when they look at garden tools or cleaning supplies for instance.
I suspect they will be deliberatly trying NOT to find things that make people seem guilty (eg - B & D supplies) - can you imagine just how much time it would take if they investigated every single indication that this person may have done it? I would **imagine ** that its going to be more a case of hmmm…this person has rope when we know the girl was tied up, he is very nervous about something and he can’t tell us where he was when she disappeared and he has a pair of girls panties in the living room when he lives alone - let’s take a closer look at him. (note - none of this in an indicator of guilt alone, and even in combination are easily explained, but were I the investigator they would place the person on my list of suspects)
It could be an outright fishing expedition to look for evidence of other crimes that they will follow up later when they are running low on busts.
The issue to me is not whether I’d let the police in. It is the stupidity of the search.
I have a daughter the same age as the woman that went missing. And I feel for the parents of the woman.And I would be devastated if she were to have gone missing.
But if the cops came to me after a month of not finding her and said “OK, our next move is, we’re going to ask people to let us search the 6,000 nearest houses”, I’d say “Are you out of your fucking minds? Do you think someone has her tied to their living room table? That’s a huge waste of precious police hours, that’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Get the cops out there knocking on doors and asking people if they’ve seen anything suspicious, look for clues, check the usual suspects, but don’t blow your man-hours tripping over 6,000 people’s ottomans and peering into their closets!!!”
And based on that, I would definitely tell them to piss off and do some real real police work if they came by my house and asked to look around because some guy down the road was missing his 17 year old daughter. Every moment that they spend rooting around in my house is a wasted moment. Go interview people, go Sherlock around for fucking clues, but you can’t come in.
Not because it is my right, not because of the constitution, but because it is the most sophomoric police tactic I’ve ever heard of. The young woman has been gone a month. There is no evidence of foul play. She is an adult. This is a huge waste of precious police resources.
I dont think that the cops are actually looking for her , but rather they are gauging peoples reactions to the constable showing up at the door , and the perfuctory search , which is just a casual look around.
Back sometime between 75 and 77, I was living in Rexdale Etobicoke at the time with my family and , time is not kind to the memory cause I cant remember if it was a boy or girl that disapeared. The cops did the same thing and we had some constables showing up at the apartment and go through all the rooms , which was just open door and glance in.
When spring of that year came around , the remains were found by a neighbor complaining of a smell and it turns out that a sixteen year old had murdered the victim and stashed the remains in the garage.
The house was searched by the cops, but I guess because of the winter and the brevity of the search, that there would have been no way that they would have found the remains unless they stumbled on them or something of that nature.
Myself, I dont see the harm in it, but then again , that was a different time.
I agree, it looks pretty bad, but even with all that, there is still no evidence of a crime. How can the police eliminate suspects for a crime that was not committed? That’s what makes me uncomfortable about this; if they had found her body or blood or something else, then perhaps steps like this may be necessary, but I’m not convinced it would help in this case, and so I would refuse access to the cops to search my place without a warrant.
Looking at your list, how about the following:
There may be a large enough community of people who speak her mother tongue so that the few friends she may have don’t require her to speak English. My parents and brother didn’t really know who I was and wasn’t friends with at 17/18… she may have made friends with someone and kept it a secret for whatever reason. That person may have had money. She could have chosen to run away from home, and in so doing, ditched her bag. She could be living with someone who “understands her”, in the words of so many teenage runaways.
Do I think my scenario (or something like it) is more likely than a kidnapping/murder/other crime? No, not really. But until or unless evidence of an actual crime shows up, I’m not willing to consent to a search of my property, to DNA sampling, or even to answering most questions beyond “have you seen this girl?” I am not a suspect, and I will not voluntarily consent to be treated like one over a hypothetical crime.
It apparently flew in Truro, Massachusetts, when police asked all males for DNA samples because they had absolutely no leads in the murder of Christa Worthington. Cite. Same kind of sleazy, intimidating statements from the police too - claiming it was “completely voluntary”, but that they would “take note” of those who refuse.
I realise the thread has moved on from the original question but anyway…
I’d let in one officer (after checking their ID) and I’d follow them around and watch their every move. If I thought they were looking for something other than what they said they were looking for (like looking in drawers for a missing person), I would ask them to leave.
Wearing the uniform earns you my co-operation but not my trust.
