US Virgin Is - Sarm Joan Lillian Heslop, 41, British, aboard vessel Siren Song, St. John, 7 Mar 2021

[Satchie]

Blood splatter on the sides of the catamaran. Remember the case where the husband pulled the wife outside of their two story house, down the side, then across? I just remember the luminal showed the route the body took as he tried to hide it after the fact. Cleanup did not help him. Maybe the wood chipper case?

Also, it's just better to be consistent. If you claim to be standing by your constitutional rights, then cave in later, and basically say 'my rights don't matter any more', it could lead to a conclusion that it was never about rights, but buying time. This is why lawyers always advise non-cooperation, if the state decides to prosecute, anything you say will be used as evidence against you.

 

[MsMarple]

Blood splatter on the sides of the catamaran. Remember the case where the husband pulled the wife outside of their two story house, down the side, then across? I just remember the luminal showed the route the body took as he tried to hide it after the fact. Cleanup did not help him. Maybe the wood chipper case?

All it takes is one spot of blood spatter to suggest foul play, especially if it's somewhere atypical. For example, on the ceiling or wall of a state room. Plus, Luminol would show areas where someone attempted to wipe up blood or other bodily fluids.

But... there are several agencies working on Sarm's case: USVIPD, FBI, Coast Guard and Southampton UK LE, so WHY HASN'T THE DAMN BOAT BEEN SEARCHED? Why hasn't Ryan Bane been brought in to LE for further interviews?

Are all these agencies so impotent that one stubborn boat captain can prevent a forensic search of his boat? This would *never* happen on the mainland.

IMO it's time for Sarm's parents to hire their own high-powered attorney. Maybe a civil suit will lift LE off their arses. MOO.

 

[lonetraveler]

Hope that investigators are at the very least keeping track of any purchases he has made. Like clean up supplies.

 

[Zoomy]

Hope that investigators are at the very least keeping track of any purchases he has made. Like clean up supplies.

Well he was reported buying towels a few weeks ago when he went ashore.

Considering the charter is advertised as all inclusive and includes towels, he must already have had loads...

"Mr Bane was last seen on Wednesday afternoon taking a dinghy to the shore before returning to his 47-ft catamaran with a plastic bag, sneakers and towels."

Missing Sarm Heslop's family's misery at being unable to travel to US Virgin Islands to help search | Daily Mail Online

 

[Lucy6226]

Well he was reported buying towels a few weeks ago when he went ashore.

Considering the charter is advertised as all inclusive and includes towels, he must already have had loads...

"Mr Bane was last seen on Wednesday afternoon taking a dinghy to the shore before returning to his 47-ft catamaran with a plastic bag, sneakers and towels."

Missing Sarm Heslop's family's misery at being unable to travel to US Virgin Islands to help search | Daily Mail Online

Maybe the existing towels got dirty somehow? Nothing suspicious about that

 

[Beans]

Do we know if he moved the catamaran at all in the days immediately after reporting her missing? I know he has moved now, but prior to that?

I wonder if it’s completely outwith the realms of possibility that she was onboard and alive after he reported her missing/when coastguard appeared... (yes, I know it’s a stretch, just working through some scenarios!)

 

[JerseyGirl]

“He’s still refusing us boarding the boat and we are still working to see what angles we can use,” police spokesman Toby Derima told the Sunday People about Bane.

The police spokesman said investigators “would need to have probable cause” to obtain a search warrant.

Asked what would constitute probable cause, Derima said: “That I won’t get into… if we give that out people could take steps to make sure we don’t get it,” according to the report.

He added that “law enforcement knows where he is — still in the US Virgin Islands.”

Sarm Heslop's parents hit a roadblock in agonizing search

Local detectives said they may ask a judge to issue a search warrant for the vessel as “Mr Bane hasn’t co-operated yet.”

Parents agony for missing daughter as police push to search boyfriend's boat

 

[ApparentlyInDenial]

“He’s still refusing us boarding the boat and we are still working to see what angles we can use,” police spokesman Toby Derima told the Sunday People about Bane.

The police spokesman said investigators “would need to have probable cause” to obtain a search warrant.

Asked what would constitute probable cause, Derima said: “That I won’t get into… if we give that out people could take steps to make sure we don’t get it,” according to the report.

He added that “law enforcement knows where he is — still in the US Virgin Islands.”

Sarm Heslop's parents hit a roadblock in agonizing search

Local detectives said they may ask a judge to issue a search warrant for the vessel as “Mr Bane hasn’t co-operated yet.”

Parents agony for missing daughter as police push to search boyfriend's boat

Wow, USVI is a great place to go to escape the rule of law! It's like they just can't be bothered.

 

[Mandalas]

Wow, USVI is a great place to go to escape the rule of law! It's like they just can't be bothered.

I am baffled by this. So if this guy IS guilty of something - even if it's gross negligence following an accident or argument gone wrong - there is literally nothing that can happen in the immediate term to investigate, even with the involvement of heavy weight forces such as FBI, UK LE and global press? How can this be lawful? Doesn't he have a legal duty of care as a boat captain for his 'staff' at all times, even if they were a couple? I'm finding it incredibly hard to believe something else is not afoot here, given how long this is dragging on, with all those involved.

This must be horrendous for Sarm's family, and I'm ashamed this can happen in our world.

 

[Mandalas]

I've just been doing a little more research into maritime law, as I know pretty much zilch about it. For what it's worth, I teach entertainment law so am aware of fundamentals and principles of UK law, but that's about it. Very much the tip of the iceberg kind of levels!

As far as I can tell, a captain of any vessel has a legal duty of care under SOLAS (International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea), particularly Chapter V, to meet certain regulations. This includes carrying out certain procedures when in danger/distress. Are these publicly recorded anywhere? Do we know whether RB as Captain would have carried out the correct procedures? Does he ever get to be 'off duty' in that sense, or is he always liable, including for his crew? Do we have any sleuthers knowledgeable in maritime law here? Is that where the loopholes are that are stalling progress?

Sorry if it seems very amateurish of me, I'm just getting my mind on this now, and I appreciate we explored it briefly earlier in the thread. Thought it might be worth exploring a little more...

 

[JuicyLucy]

I've just been doing a little more research into maritime law, as I know pretty much zilch about it. For what it's worth, I teach entertainment law so am aware of fundamentals and principles of UK law, but that's about it. Very much the tip of the iceberg kind of levels!

As far as I can tell, a captain of any vessel has a legal duty of care under SOLAS (International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea), particularly Chapter V, to meet certain regulations. This includes carrying out certain procedures when in danger/distress. Are these publicly recorded anywhere? Do we know whether RB as Captain would have carried out the correct procedures? Does he ever get to be 'off duty' in that sense, or is he always liable, including for his crew? Do we have any sleuthers knowledgeable in maritime law here? Is that where the loopholes are that are stalling progress?

Sorry if it seems very amateurish of me, I'm just getting my mind on this now, and I appreciate we explored it briefly earlier in the thread. Thought it might be worth exploring a little more...

See, for me, this is where the issue of alcohol seemed interesting, because it seems to me that, as the captain, any situation where he was over the legal limit for sailing (mentioned upthread) would amount to being 'drunk in charge', even if the boat was at anchor, and might explain why he had delayed in calling in the coastguard until he'd worked some units off. But then a previous poster said that that would mean no one could ever have a bottle of wine on their own boat, which is commonplace. So who is liable for the safety of the boat and the crew in that situation? Is it only an issue if the boat is moving? Or is the captain only at a duty of care to those on board if they've paid to be there? Do they stay stone cold sober during a charter and then get plastered afterwards? And if so, is that a safe and satisfactory state of affairs?

So I would also be interested in the answers to some of @Mandalas' questions. (And in the meantime, I think I will stay on dry land, and well away from the Virgin Islands.)

ETA: jmo

 

[Mandalas]

See, for me, this is where the issue of alcohol seemed interesting, because it seems to me that, as the captain, any situation where he was over the legal limit for sailing (mentioned upthread) would amount to being 'drunk in charge', even if the boat was at anchor, and might explain why he had delayed in calling in the coastguard until he'd worked some units off. But then a previous poster said that that would mean no one could ever have a bottle of wine on their own boat, which is commonplace. So who is liable for the safety of the boat and the crew in that situation? Is it only an issue if the boat is moving? Or is the captain only at a duty of care to those on board if they've paid to be there? Do they stay stone cold sober during a charter and then get plastered afterwards? And if so, is that a safe and satisfactory state of affairs?

So I would also be interested in the answers to some of @Mandalas' questions. (And in the meantime, I think I will stay on dry land, and well away from the Virgin Islands.)

ETA: jmo

Very interesting. As you say, to what extent is he liable for crew / seafaring staff post charter? And when they are off-site / back on deck between charters? If there is a private relationship but the person is not currently under employment terms?

The Maritime Labour Convention seems to apply to some extent. This is a UK reference but it is an international treaty, so unless I'm mistaken, would apply.

 

[JuicyLucy]

Very interesting. As you say, to what extent is he liable for crew / seafaring staff post charter? And when they are off-site / back on deck between charters? If there is a private relationship but the person is not currently under employment terms?

The Maritime Labour Convention seems to apply to some extent. This is a UK reference but it is an international treaty, so unless I'm mistaken, would apply.

Lots for RB to be concerned about there, I should think, but do you think this exclusion clause:
ships navigating inland or sheltered waters subject to port regulations
would give Siren Song and similar vessels a free pass from compliance?

jmo

 

[TreiseOg]

I've just been doing a little more research into maritime law, as I know pretty much zilch about it. For what it's worth, I teach entertainment law so am aware of fundamentals and principles of UK law, but that's about it. Very much the tip of the iceberg kind of levels!

As far as I can tell, a captain of any vessel has a legal duty of care under SOLAS (International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea), particularly Chapter V, to meet certain regulations. This includes carrying out certain procedures when in danger/distress. Are these publicly recorded anywhere? Do we know whether RB as Captain would have carried out the correct procedures? Does he ever get to be 'off duty' in that sense, or is he always liable, including for his crew? Do we have any sleuthers knowledgeable in maritime law here? Is that where the loopholes are that are stalling progress?

Sorry if it seems very amateurish of me, I'm just getting my mind on this now, and I appreciate we explored it briefly earlier in the thread. Thought it might be worth exploring a little more...

Far from amateurish, @Mandalas; I think these are really good questions.

So by way of background, to qualify in my SAR Nav role I've had to undertake a few qualifications which include touching on the maritime legal framework. Separate to this, my past background was in UK general law. So I have a little knowledge and happy to try and address some of the questions. In saying that, I'm not a specific maritime law expert by any means. So bear with my waffle!

Firstly, Chapter V of the SOLAS Covention Regs is the only section of the Regs that applies to all boats. The rest of it only applies to merchant ships. Chapter V doesn't lay out a Captain's specific responsibility in terms of crew (beyond awareness of their capability; roles and duties etc) as far as I understand; and doesn't specify obligations or actions in the sense of 'this is what you must do' should a member of their own crew go overboard.

To put SOLAS in context, it's been written at a high level and addresses the absolute minimum requirements of safety at sea. Given that it's an international convention, pitching it at a very basic high level allows countries to put more specifics into their own domestic laws if they wish.

There is a part of Chapter V that deals with obligation on distress situations, but the focus and wording of this seems to be round the duty of boats and their Captains to respond to distress calls, rather than dealing with specific response procedures to man overboard situations relating to their own vessel. Again, for context, the first ever SOLAS convention was put together following the Titanic disaster.

However, there are a few other international conventions that would be relevant if you consider the actions that RB would have been trained to take on believing a member of his crew has gone overboard, even if he didn't personally witness it. This is what I meant when I posted way back (I think it was in this thread) that there were certain actions I'd have expected him to take as he'd definitely have been trained in these. The main one is the STCW (The Standards of Training, Certification & Watchkeeping for Seafarers) which specifies the minimum training standards and expressly includes need for training in man overboard procedures. Again, this conveys minimum standard and countries are free to have equivalent certified training. In saying that, there is nowhere in a convention or law that I can see that specifically lists the actions you must take and I can see why, as boats may have different equipment available. But the actions I listed earlier in the thread are basically accepted standard actions covered by STCW certified training.

Plus, even though there is no specific written law stating what a Captain must do in event of a man overboard, that absolutely does not mean that a Captain does not have a duty of care. There has been a duty of care principle declared by the courts via case law which, to date, outlines an expectation that a Captain will take reasonable care to at least attempt a rescue, even though the rescue attempt itself doesn't have to be 'perfect' (Horsley v. MacLaren [1972], Canadian case, for any other nerds out there!).

Purely from an LE point of view in respect of the points above only, issue would be that they have no primary witnesses/evidence that Sarm went overboard. Then of course RB's version of events is that he searched for her himself.

Though I don't accept that they don't have enough circumstantial concerns to search the yacht in the first place.

Apologies again for this waffle; I've tried to outline the main requirements as best I can...

 

[TreiseOg]

See, for me, this is where the issue of alcohol seemed interesting, because it seems to me that, as the captain, any situation where he was over the legal limit for sailing (mentioned upthread) would amount to being 'drunk in charge', even if the boat was at anchor, and might explain why he had delayed in calling in the coastguard until he'd worked some units off. But then a previous poster said that that would mean no one could ever have a bottle of wine on their own boat, which is commonplace. So who is liable for the safety of the boat and the crew in that situation? Is it only an issue if the boat is moving? Or is the captain only at a duty of care to those on board if they've paid to be there? Do they stay stone cold sober during a charter and then get plastered afterwards? And if so, is that a safe and satisfactory state of affairs?

So I would also be interested in the answers to some of @Mandalas' questions. (And in the meantime, I think I will stay on dry land, and well away from the Virgin Islands.)

ETA: jmo

The case quoted above in my reply actually laid out duty of care in the context of a captain/cox who took some friends out fishing (from vague memory). Interesting also that they had been drinking (allegedly) , from what I recall.

The Maritime Labour Convention, from what I know, lays out minimum working conditions for commercial vessel crew in those countries that subscribe to it. But even if the exemptions didn't apply, the only section in it that is anyway close in relevance to this situation is the one that requires owners to operate crew insurance in respect of injury/death. So not an awful lot in it in respect of the original questions.

And that really is the extent of what I can add law-wise, I'm afraid.

 

[Mandalas]

See, for me, this is where the issue of alcohol seemed interesting, because it seems to me that, as the captain, any situation where he was over the legal limit for sailing (mentioned upthread) would amount to being 'drunk in charge', even if the boat was at anchor, and might explain why he had delayed in calling in the coastguard until he'd worked some units off. But then a previous poster said that that would mean no one could ever have a bottle of wine on their own boat, which is commonplace. So who is liable for the safety of the boat and the crew in that situation? Is it only an issue if the boat is moving? Or is the captain only at a duty of care to those on board if they've paid to be there? Do they stay stone cold sober during a charter and then get plastered afterwards? And if so, is that a safe and satisfactory state of affairs?

So I would also be interested in the answers to some of @Mandalas' questions. (And in the meantime, I think I will stay on dry land, and well away from the Virgin Islands.)

ETA: jmo

I echo you on staying on dry land and at a certain distance from USVI...!

I can only imagine that working under the influence with members of the general public under your care would constitute a severe breach, and surely would (best case) invalidate any insurance policy in the event of an accident, and at worst case, put you in beach of the law, and therefore liable.

Gosh, I can see why this could be very messy and unclear.

 

[Satchie]

Wow, USVI is a great place to go to escape the rule of law! It's like they just can't be bothered.

I don't know about in USVI, but in many jurisdictions a case will be thrown out of court if the defense shows police engaged in unlawful search and seizure.

 

[janewall]

I don't know about in USVI, but in many jurisdictions a case will be thrown out of court if the defense shows police engaged in unlawful search and seizure.

What confounds me is that the VIPD has not been able to establish cause for a search warrant. Not being a lawyer, I don't understand what the hangup/loophole is in that regard, when the SS is the last place Sarm is alleged to have been seen. It seems like the obvious starting point for the search – a search that RB seemed to be trying to initiate when he first called to report her missing. But I guess without any evidence of a crime, the obvious and logical starting point is not legally accessible without permission from the proprietor – even if that proprietor is the person who initiated the search.

If this was RB's calculation when he made that 2 am phone call to VIPD, his concerned-boyfriend act is pretty diabolical.

 

[Mandalas]

Far from amateurish, @Mandalas; I think these are really good questions.

So by way of background, to qualify in my SAR Nav role I've had to undertake a few qualifications which include touching on the maritime legal framework. Separate to this, my past background was in UK general law. So I have a little knowledge and happy to try and address some of the questions. In saying that, I'm not a specific maritime law expert by any means. So bear with my waffle!

Firstly, Chapter V of the SOLAS Covention Regs is the only section of the Regs that applies to all boats. The rest of it only applies to merchant ships. Chapter V doesn't lay out a Captain's specific responsibility in terms of crew (beyond awareness of their capability; roles and duties etc) as far as I understand; and doesn't specify obligations or actions in the sense of 'this is what you must do' should a member of their own crew go overboard.

To put SOLAS in context, it's been written at a high level and addresses the absolute minimum requirements of safety at sea. Given that it's an international convention, pitching it at a very basic high level allows countries to put more specifics into their own domestic laws if they wish.

There is a part of Chapter V that deals with obligation on distress situations, but the focus and wording of this seems to be round the duty of boats and their Captains to respond to distress calls, rather than dealing with specific response procedures to man overboard situations relating to their own vessel. Again, for context, the first ever SOLAS convention was put together following the Titanic disaster.

However, there are a few other international conventions that would be relevant if you consider the actions that RB would have been trained to take on believing a member of his crew has gone overboard, even if he didn't personally witness it. This is what I meant when I posted way back (I think it was in this thread) that there were certain actions I'd have expected him to take as he'd definitely have been trained in these. The main one is the STCW (The Standards of Training, Certification & Watchkeeping for Seafarers) which specifies the minimum training standards and expressly includes need for training in man overboard procedures. Again, this conveys minimum standard and countries are free to have equivalent certified training. In saying that, there is nowhere in a convention or law that I can see that specifically lists the actions you must take and I can see why, as boats may have different equipment available. But the actions I listed earlier in the thread are basically accepted standard actions covered by STCW certified training.

Plus, even though there is no specific written law stating what a Captain must do in event of a man overboard, that absolutely does not mean that a Captain does not have a duty of care. There has been a duty of care principle declared by the courts via case law which, to date, outlines an expectation that a Captain will take reasonable care to at least attempt a rescue, even though the rescue attempt itself doesn't have to be 'perfect' (Horsley v. MacLaren [1972], Canadian case, for any other nerds out there!).

Purely from an LE point of view in respect of the points above only, issue would be that they have no primary witnesses/evidence that Sarm went overboard. Then of course RB's version of events is that he searched for her himself.

Though I don't accept that they don't have enough circumstantial concerns to search the yacht in the first place.

Apologies again for this waffle; I've tried to outline the main requirements as best I can...

Thank you so much @TreiseOg . Not waffle by any means, very grateful to have your expert insight on this case.

If an adult went missing on dry land, say on a camping/caravanning trip, no sign of a body, no 'evidence' of foul play, wouldn't the police easily get a warrant to search the last known place the person was seen?

How much of this is lack of evidence, how much is loopholes and how much is incompetence, based on what we know... I guess that too must be hard to say. Very frustrating.

 

[O.Incandenza]

What confounds me is that the VIPD has not been able to establish cause for a search warrant. Not being a lawyer, I don't understand what the hangup/loophole is in that regard, when the SS is the last place Sarm is alleged to have been seen. It seems like the obvious starting point for the search – a search that RB seemed to be trying to initiate when he first called to report her missing. But I guess without any evidence of a crime, the obvious and logical starting point is not legally accessible without permission from the proprietor – even if that proprietor is the person who initiated the search.

If this was RB's calculation when he made that 2 am phone call to VIPD, his concerned-boyfriend act is pretty diabolical.

BBM

Yeah, that's basically it.

The 4th Amendment requires that police have a reasonable basis for believing that evidence of a crime may be present at a location before they can get a warrant to search it. That can be an issue in missing persons cases because people can go missing without any crime occurring. They can leave voluntarily, they can have an accident, etc. So the fact that Sarm is missing doesn't by itself give the police probable cause to search the boat. They need additional evidence that suggests a crime occurred and that evidence of it may be on the boat.

What I don't get is how they don't have that already. The bf himself told them that Sarm returned to the boat and then disappeared from it. And there's reportedly a dog-walker who heard a scream early in the morning. I'd think that would be enough by itself. And the fact that the bf stopped the coast guard from searching might be additional evidence they could use. Normally you can't use a refusal to allow a search as evidence supporting a search warrant since that would basically nullify the warrant requirement, but if the coast guard already had a legal right to search the boat then I think the bf obstructing that search could be used. And the fact they give him a citation suggests they did have that right. But I don't know maritime law or how it interacts with the 4th Amendment, so I'm just guessing.