Tim Bosma: Dellen Millard & Mark Smich chgd w/Murder; Christina Noudga, Accessory

Arnie M said:

Juballee ... the accused (lawyers) will get all the evidence well before any trial , there will not be any surprises for them.... but that is a ways down the road

All that is needed right now is sufficient information to make an arrest , and obviously that has happened , and the arrest warrants would have been approved by a neutral judge , who's function is to make sure the accused deserved (the arrest) and I am sure defending lawyers have been given at least that much information(for the arrest).

If any of those folks were innocent they and their lawyers would have made a bunch of racket and would have been released within days.

On the other hand , as speculated by others , the accused may prefer to remain in "protected custody" for reasons only they know at this time , maybe it is for their own safety , we can only speculate.

Click to expand...

I doubt that the defence lawyers would still be asking for disclosure at each court appearance if they had already received all of it. The timing of receiving disclosure can be essential to examining and refuting it, obviously, so playing games with delays and skipping the pre-trial can have a devastating effect on the defence's ability to clear their clients name. Which is cause for a mistrial.

Again, if the prosecutors have such a slam dunk of a case, why would they fear pre-trial? Are they concerned that information will come out that will give the defence such an advantage that they can use in trial to be found not guilty? Because again, if that is the case, then the defendants have a right to that evidence as soon as possible. Perhaps if they already had that disclosure they might not still be sitting in jail.

I get really tired of hearing that if they were innocent, they would have already been released. That is not how the legal system works, except in fantasy land. If someone has proof that no innocent people have ever sat in jail, then this might be a valid point, but we all know that is not the case. Anyone who has ever been to court or has had a lawyer will tell you that their advice is always to err on the side of caution, and they will not go about screaming their defence strategy to the media because they know it will not get their client released any sooner and will only complicate matters worse.

The one thing I do agree on here though, is that perhaps protective custody is the safest place for some of these defendants. If I saw what looks like the image of my murdered father tattooed on some thugs head, I'd think solitary confinement might be a safe place to wait out the trial, personally. On that note, has anyone tracked down who did that tattoo and when in was inked?

Juballee said:

snip
Again, if the prosecutors have such a slam dunk of a case, why would they fear pre-trial?
snip

Click to expand...

If they have a slam dunk case they dont need a preliminary trial

Juballee said:

I doubt that the defence lawyers would still be asking for disclosure at each court appearance if they had already received all of it. The timing of receiving disclosure can be essential to examining and refuting it, obviously, so playing games with delays and skipping the pre-trial can have a devastating effect on the defence's ability to clear their clients name. Which is cause for a mistrial.

Again, if the prosecutors have such a slam dunk of a case, why would they fear pre-trial? Are they concerned that information will come out that will give the defence such an advantage that they can use in trial to be found not guilty? Because again, if that is the case, then the defendants have a right to that evidence as soon as possible. Perhaps if they already had that disclosure they might not still be sitting in jail.

Click to expand...

The defence lawyers in the Bosma case are not asking for disclosure and haven't for months. Please provide one citation to back up this assertion.

A number of reasons have been cited for avoiding a pre-trial and these have nothing to with lack of evidence or the crown fearing it has a weak case.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4590481-crown-applies-to-take-bosma-murder-case-direct-to-trial/

From a Crown's standpoint, going straight to trial can speed up the judicial process, reduce violations of publication bans, spare witnesses from testifying twice and the victim's family from going through two lengthy hearings, and keep the defence from knowing the Crown's strategy.

Click to expand...

And...

It is also used when it "would be injurious to the public interest" to hear horrible details of a crime more than is necessary, such as in the case of Paul Bernardo who in 1994 was sent directly to trial for murdering two schoolgirls.

Young also says in particularly high-profile cases, bypassing the preliminary hearing may help to ensure publication bans are not breached.

And if the case relates to other cases before the court, the Crown may have concerns about the timing of certain evidence being made public, says Young.

In Ontario, direct indictments have been granted in only a handful of the highest profile cases — mostly murders. Michael Rafferty, convicted of killing eight-year-old Tori Stafford, was ordered in 2010 to proceed straight to trial.

Click to expand...

Does anyone really believe that it was a lack of evidence that caused the crown to seek a direct indictment in the Bernardo and Rafferty cases?

In both these instances there were valid concerns about the gruesome nature of the testimony, the breaking of publications bans and the burden to the victims' families of testifying twice.

All those factors apply in the Bosma murder case. And on top of that, there is also the fact that it relates to other cases before the court.

Do the posters who believe that a direct indictment would be a violation of Millard's and Smich's rights also believe that Bernard and Rafferty didn't receive fair trials? Can they cite any actual examples where direct indictments have been improperly used and resulted in a mistrial?

If I saw what looks like the image of my murdered father tattooed on some thugs head, I'd think solitary confinement might be a safe place to wait out the trial, personally. On that note, has anyone tracked down who did that tattoo and when in was inked?

Click to expand...

The tattoo artist in question declined to talk to me, citing concerns for his clients' privacy. Perhaps the police had more success.

There is a lot of skewed and misinformation that gets posted on these particular threads, along with conjecture posted as fact. Pitiful, imo.

ABro said:

The defence lawyers in the Bosma case are not asking for disclosure and haven't for months. Please provide one citation to back up this assertion.

A number of reasons have been cited for avoiding a pre-trial and these have nothing to with lack of evidence or the crown fearing it has a weak case.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4590481-crown-applies-to-take-bosma-murder-case-direct-to-trial/



And...



Does anyone really believe that it was a lack of evidence that caused the crown to seek a direct indictment in the Bernardo and Rafferty cases?

In both these instances there were valid concerns about the gruesome nature of the testimony, the breaking of publications bans and the burden to the victims' families of testifying twice.

All those factors apply in the Bosma murder case. And on top of that, there is also the fact that it relates to other cases before the court.

Do the posters who believe that a direct indictment would be a violation of Millard's and Smich's rights also believe that Bernard and Rafferty didn't receive fair trials? Can they cite any actual examples where direct indictments have been improperly used and resulted in a mistrial?



The tattoo artist in question declined to talk to me, citing concerns for his clients' privacy. Perhaps the police had more success.

Click to expand...

I don't remember saying that the crown thinks that they have a lack of evidence, I am saying that if they feel that they have enough evidence to skip pre-trial, there would logically also be no harm in disclosing it to the defendants at pre-trial, since if it is irrefutable, there is no reason to hide it by skipping pre-trial. That is just logic, there is no need to try to argue the point.

If the evidence that they do not want to reveal with a pre-trial is refutable, like witness testimony, they may not want to give those witnesses a chance to lessen their credibility by testifying twice.

Do we really think that the real reason that they are trying to skip pretrial has to do with shielding the public from details that they won't be privy to at pre-trial anyway? Or that it is out of sympathy for the victims families, because if they cared about them that much, they wouldn't leave Laura's family in the dark, in my opinion. Is it to save the public money or save the witnesses time? I highly doubt that, since we can all site examples that prove that they really don't care about wasting anyone's time or money.

The only reason now to skip pre-trial is to keep a key part of the prosecution's strategy a secret until it absolutely must be revealed, or it must have to do with the timing of the evidence in relation to another trial, in my opinion.

Personally, I think that, like in the Bernardo and Rafferty trials, one of the co-defendants has most likely cut a deal and will be testifying against the other, that to me is the only reason for the need for secrecy. There are a lot of cases out there where the evidence is strong enough to go straight to trial, and yet skipping pre-trial is rarely done.

Also, I believe that just because the defence may not be demanding more instalments of disclosure at each court date does not necessarily mean that all disclosure has been revealed, it can also mean that the crown is supplying it at a consistent basis now instead of holding up the process. Unless the investigation is completely over, new information and evidence are still being gathered, and from what I believe, can continue to be gathered and given as discovery materials right up until and including trial.

Juballee said:

Personally, I think that, like in the Bernardo and Rafferty trials, one of the co-defendants has most likely cut a deal and will be testifying against the other, that to me is the only reason for the need for secrecy. There are a lot of cases out there where the evidence is strong enough to go straight to trial, and yet skipping pre-trial is rarely done.

Also, I believe that just because the defence may not be demanding more instalments of disclosure at each court date does not necessarily mean that all disclosure has been revealed, it can also mean that the crown is supplying it at a consistent basis now instead of holding up the process. Unless the investigation is completely over, new information and evidence are still being gathered, and from what I believe, can continue to be gathered and given as discovery materials right up until and including trial.

Click to expand...

What deal did Terrri-Lynne McClintic cut? She pleaded guilty and got life imprisonment for first degree murder. How's that a deal?

And is there any prosecutor in Canada who wants to be known for another deal with the devil? If anything, the Bernardo case is incentive NOT to deal in a case like this.

I see no incentive whatsoever for the Crown to make a deal with either of the accused in the Bosma case.

They've got credible witnesses, the victim's remains on Millard's farm, a guy with a livestock incinerator and no livestock, and the truck in his mother's driveway.

The only thing they have to fear is a glove that don't fit.

ABro said:

The defence lawyers in the Bosma case are not asking for disclosure and haven't for months. Please provide one citation to back up this assertion.

A number of reasons have been cited for avoiding a pre-trial and these have nothing to with lack of evidence or the crown fearing it has a weak case.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4590481-crown-applies-to-take-bosma-murder-case-direct-to-trial/

And...

Does anyone really believe that it was a lack of evidence that caused the crown to seek a direct indictment in the Bernardo and Rafferty cases?

In both these instances there were valid concerns about the gruesome nature of the testimony, the breaking of publications bans and the burden to the victims' families of testifying twice.

All those factors apply in the Bosma murder case. And on top of that, there is also the fact that it relates to other cases before the court.

Do the posters who believe that a direct indictment would be a violation of Millard's and Smich's rights also believe that Bernard and Rafferty didn't receive fair trials? Can they cite any actual examples where direct indictments have been improperly used and resulted in a mistrial?



The tattoo artist in question declined to talk to me, citing concerns for his clients' privacy. Perhaps the police had more success.

Click to expand...

I haven't read anywhere except here that one of the reasons to request a direct indictment is because the Crown has a "slam dunk" case either.

Perhaps if better use were made of pre-trial conferences, with the case laid out in full, there would be more opportunity for mediation and resolving some issues. As it is, the defense receives such a mass of disclosure that it can be difficult to determine the essence of the Crown's case.

He persuaded the parties that Crown counsel should present her case at the "conference" by way of PowerPoint, with video and audio exhibits accompanying the PowerPoint presentation. He then had the Crown repeat the performance in front of the accused. Once the accused appreciated the strength of the Crown's case, pleas quickly ensued, once again saving the justice system a very lengthy preliminary inquiry and trial and providing the victim with closure.
....
One unintended adverse consequence of the broad sweep of Stinchcombe disclosure is that the defence now receives so much material that they cannot always appreciate the core of the Crown's case. The old style of Crown brief, while much more limited than what Stinchcombe requires, at least had the advantage of clearly setting out the Crown's case. By using the s. 625.1 "conference" as a vehicle for the Crown to explain and outline their case, in this forceful and dramatic way, the Judge helped the parties to better understand the Crown's case.

Click to expand...

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/lesage_code/chapter_4.asp


One of the problems with direct indictments that causes public distrust is the secrecy they are surrounded in. The judicial system needs to be open to public scrutiny and criticism to ensure public confidence in the integrity and fairness of the system.

From the Court of Appeal website:

Along with more openness through the publication of guidelines, Attorneys General should be encouraged to provide reasons for important decisions in individual cases. Without reasons, decisions are virtually immune from judicial review.

Click to expand...

This is a far more satisfactory state of affairs than what occurred in R. v. Taylor,[123] where Crown counsel, when asked by the judge for the reasons for preferring a direct indictment, replied that he did not know and therefore could not communicate the reasons. In the face of an allegation by defence counsel that the Attorney General had preferred the indictment for improper motives, the judge simply said “there is no evidence before me as to the reason or reasons for the Honourable Allan Williams’ decision to sign and to be presented these four indictments. Therefore, it would be sheer speculation on my part to hold that the Attorney General has acted with impropriety.”[124] In providing reasons, the Attorney General in the Morgentaler prosecution did credit to the administration of justice. However, the kind of position taken by Crown counsel in Taylor may tend to deepen the public’s mistrust and suspicion of the machinery of justice.

Click to expand...

http://www.ontariocourts.ca/coa/en/ps/publications/attorney_general_prosecution_function.htm

In regards to Michael Rafferty, here is what his lawyer had to say about the direct indictment:

Rafferty’s lawyer Dirk Derstine was not happy when he learned in 2010 that the ministry was taking the unusual step of sending his client straight to trial on charges he raped and murdered eight-year-old Tori Stafford. There were no reasons given and no appeal possible.
...
Rare as it may be, Derstine believes a direct indictment should not be used, especially in murder cases when the stakes are so high and no short cuts should be taken. The defence lawyer complains that it only seems to be used in high profile cases and we are never told the reason why — it’s a decision made at the ministry level and no explanation is ever offered. “I think it’s dangerous to do it for efficiency alone,” he said. “It generally concerns me.”

Click to expand...

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/20/a-direct-indictment-would-be-welcome-news-for-tim-bosmas-family

Anyone who followed that case knows that it did not speed up the trial date. It was still 3 years before it went to trial. In hindsight, it may have even been advantageous for the Crown to go ahead with the preliminary. They may have learned at an earlier date that their star witness had no credibility at all and would deny under oath what she had previously claimed in her statement of "facts". If a publication ban wasn't breached in that trial, I doubt it would be a problem for this one.

Here is one case where a direct indictment was challenged as an abuse of process. In exchange for concessions from the Defense, the Crown agreed to call 20 witnesses in the preliminary hearing. After only 2 witnesses were called, the Crown applied for a direct indictment saying it was in the "public interest". I don't believe it went through, but there are other abuse of process filings made in that case that could cause ongoing court hearings. Not only does the indictment show a lack of trust, but also could potentially lengthen court times rather than shortening them. Interest thought from the article:

A preliminary hearing is a "dress rehearsal" for the defence and the Crown to test the strengths and the weaknesses of each side and can streamline the trial, said defence lawyer Edward Sapiano. "It is beneficial for the administration of justice and the taxpayer," he said. The decision to unilaterally end the hearing will lengthen the trial and make it difficult for the defence to enter into any future agreements with the Crown, he suggested.

Click to expand...

http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=2059fe06-93e2-40c4-bbc9-f83b38b9082e&sponsor=

Another case, this one in Winnipeg. A wrongful conviction that could have been avoided if they had gone ahead with the preliminary trial.

Mr. Driskell was convicted in 1991 of murdering his friend, Mr. Harder, who was found dead of gunshot wounds four months after he went missing in Winnipeg. The Crown proceeded by direct indictment, forgoing the preliminary hearing that might have raised doubts about the evidence against him.
...
He said it meant a great deal to him that Manitoba Attorney-General David Chomiak phoned him beforehand to offer his personal apology, and an apology on behalf of all Manitobans. Mr. Chomiak also offered an initial compensation payment of $250,000 as a gesture of good faith. Mr. Driskell will likely be paid more than $1-million in compensation, and he has also brought a $20-million civil suit against the Crown and police.

Click to expand...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/driskell-report-castigates-prosecutors-and-police-alike/article679185/

Manitoba seems to use direct indictments much more than Ontario. Two more cases that were acquitted/fell apart:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/too-many-direct-indictments-lawyer-1.652295

Don't know what happened with this one, if anything yet.

A veteran city defence lawyer is slamming a sudden move by justice officials to directly indict a man charged with attempted murder in a bizarre carjacking case, saying they’re flouting both internal policy and an agreement made years ago meant to guard against wrongful convictions.

Click to expand...

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2013/05/23/policies-on-direct-indictment-being-ignored-defence-lawyer

JMO

As an aside, since I know we have a few posters here who are very concerned about those who may be wrongfully accused/framed, I hope you will take a moment and perhaps direct some posting effort for this man's case, which badly needs exposure:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - VA-mark Weiner wrongfully convicted, denied remedy

I know he's not Canadian but he still deserves some online support, especially since not a shred of evidence ties him to the case he is currently serving time for.

ABro said:

What deal did Terrri-Lynne McClintic cut? She pleaded guilty and got life imprisonment for first degree murder. How's that a deal?

Click to expand...

<rsbm>

We don't know what or if TLM cut a deal. What we do know is that the abduction and forcible confinement charges seemed to disappear and she increased her chances of getting out in 15 years under the Faint Hope Clause. If she did have a deal, I guess she reneged on it since she didn't testify to what was in her Agreed Statement of Facts.

JMO

Maybe there shouldn't be such a rush to judgement on the Crown asking to fast track to trial. Because of the PB we are not privy to what goes on during all these monthly court appearances. I would imagine there are deadlines to be met and the system is doing its thing at each of these court dates. Who's to say the defense wasn't given a deadline to make their submission for a PH and they made no submission leaving that decision up to the Crown. June 20th, may have been that deadline. Who's to say it's all the Crown's decision as the defense could be on board or in agreement with this decision to abolish the PH in this case. It could have been the accused decisions to forgo the PH, possibly citing the added personal expense, disclosure they have seen or the trauma of putting their own loved ones and witnesses through a PH. Could be they have an exact alibi and/or evidence and know it will get them off the charges, so why add to the hefty legal fees already incurred by defense. People often say how journalism is often one sided or lopsided, therefore that just might be the situation here also. MOO.

Sections 534 to 551 set out the procedure to be followed when dealing with preliminary inquiries.

A request must be made on the record by either the defence or the Crown to have a preliminary inquiry (s. 536(3)).
Failure to make that request will result in an assumption that the preliminary inquiry is waived and the matter will be remanded to set a date for trial or a trial date will be set (s. 536(4.3)).
In situations where there are multiple accused, if only one requests a preliminary inquiry, then all must proceed to the inquiry unless a severance application is brought (s. 536(4.2)).

http://www.lsuc.on.ca/For-Lawyers/M...Prepare-and-Conduct-a-Preliminary-Inquiry/#s1

Alethea Dice said:

<rsbm>

We don't know what or if TLM cut a deal. What we do know is that the abduction and forcible confinement charges seemed to disappear and she increased her chances of getting out in 15 years under the Faint Hope Clause. If she did have a deal, I guess she reneged on it since she didn't testify to what was in her Agreed Statement of Facts.

JMO

Click to expand...

Respectfully, we do know she didn't cut a deal as per Judge McDermid's words. HTH.

Judge McDermid also said it was important for the public to know that Ms. McClintic made no plea bargain with the Crown, and that she got the mandatory penalty of a life sentence. "She could not and did not receive a reduced sentence in return for her plea," he said.

After pleading guilty and under questioning from the judge, Ms. McClintic said she had been made no promises in return for the plea, and that she had not been threatened or coerced.

After she spoke, Judge McDermid asked Ms. McClintic if she was firm in her decision to plead guilty. When she said she was, he noted the intense pain that has been inflicted on Tori's family. "No sentence can take that pain away, or bring Tori back."

Then the judged looked at her and said: "Terri-Lynne McClintic, I sentence you to imprisonment for life."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-stafford-murder-case/article565295/?page=all

I don't think TLM got any favors in regards to her sentence or charges against her but I do think she ended up getting a pretty nice prison to spend her time at. You don't really think that evil was testifying from the goodness of her heart do you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

swedie said:

Maybe there shouldn't be such a rush to judgement on the Crown asking to fast track to trial. Because of the PB we are not privy to what goes on during all these monthly court appearances. I would imagine there are deadlines to be met and the system is doing its thing at each of these court dates. Who's to say the defense wasn't given a deadline to make their submission for a PH and they made no submission leaving that decision up to the Crown. June 20th, may have been that deadline. Who's to say it's all the Crown's decision as the defense could be on board or in agreement with this decision to abolish the PH in this case. It could have been the accused decisions to forgo the PH, possibly citing the added personal expense, disclosure they have seen or the trauma of putting their own loved ones and witnesses through a PH. Could be they have an exact alibi and/or evidence and know it will get them off the charges, so why add to the hefty legal fees already incurred by defense. People often say how journalism is often one sided or lopsided, therefore that just might be the situation here also. MOO.

Sections 534 to 551 set out the procedure to be followed when dealing with preliminary inquiries.

A request must be made on the record by either the defence or the Crown to have a preliminary inquiry (s. 536(3)).
Failure to make that request will result in an assumption that the preliminary inquiry is waived and the matter will be remanded to set a date for trial or a trial date will be set (s. 536(4.3)).
In situations where there are multiple accused, if only one requests a preliminary inquiry, then all must proceed to the inquiry unless a severance application is brought (s. 536(4.2)).

http://www.lsuc.on.ca/For-Lawyers/M...Prepare-and-Conduct-a-Preliminary-Inquiry/#s1

Click to expand...

If a preliminary hearing has to be requested by the Defense, I am willing to guess that they did request one, since the date for the hearing was already set back in November 2013. Also, according to your link, if they hadn't requested one, the Crown would not have had to apply to bypass it. It would have simply been assumed to be waived.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4206363-bosma-murder-trial-not-until-2015/

JMO

swedie said:

Respectfully, we do know she didn't cut a deal as per Judge McDermid's words. HTH.

Judge McDermid also said it was important for the public to know that Ms. McClintic made no plea bargain with the Crown, and that she got the mandatory penalty of a life sentence. "She could not and did not receive a reduced sentence in return for her plea," he said.

After pleading guilty and under questioning from the judge, Ms. McClintic said she had been made no promises in return for the plea, and that she had not been threatened or coerced.

After she spoke, Judge McDermid asked Ms. McClintic if she was firm in her decision to plead guilty. When she said she was, he noted the intense pain that has been inflicted on Tori's family. "No sentence can take that pain away, or bring Tori back."

Then the judged looked at her and said: "Terri-Lynne McClintic, I sentence you to imprisonment for life."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-stafford-murder-case/article565295/?page=all

Click to expand...

Yes, we know she did not get a deal for a reduced sentence. She couldn't for a first degree murder conviction. However, we also know that she was not put in isolation in prison, received counselling and knew about the faint hope clause.

McClintic is not in isolation in prison, is following the rules and taking counselling, LeRoy said.

McClintic will be eligible for parole in 15 years under the faint hope clause in the Criminal Code. Her confession, co-operation with police and guilty plea may be factors helping her cause.

Click to expand...

http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2010/12/09/mcclintic-gets-counselling-lawyer-says

Of course, her assault charge a year and a half later could negatively affect that chance. A charge that she, again, was going to plead not guilty to until she found out they had intercepted a letter that she had written to a friend about the assault.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/terri-lynne-mcclintic-pleads-guilty-in-prison-assault-1.1267714

JMO

I would bet that if the prosecutors wanted to go immediately to either a full trial , or a preliminary hearing , the defence lawyers would be jumping up and down insisting they need more time

I could be wrong , but I think it is the defense who always keep asking for more time , not the prosecutors , thus it sometimes takes years to go to trial

Arnie M said:

I would bet that if the prosecutors wanted to go immediately to either a full trial , or a preliminary hearing , the defence lawyers would be jumping up and down insisting they need more time

I could be wrong , but I think it is the defense who always keep asking for more time , not the prosecutors , thus it sometimes takes years to go to trial

Click to expand...

The defense already agreed to the date for the preliminary hearing.

Crown attorney Craig Fraser told the courtroom Tuesday that Sept. 8 is the "first available date that is convenient to all" while Dellen Millard, one of the two men suspected of murdering Bosma, was on the courtroom TV screen for his appearance.

The inquiry is expected to last about eight weeks.

Click to expand...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/preliminary-hearing-for-bosma-murder-suspects-begins-sept-2014-1.2423708

Either way, the full trial still won't be "immediately". It may happen a couple of months earlier than it would with a preliminary hearing, that's about it.

In the time leading up to the trial, it is the Defense asking for time because the Crown already has all, or most, of the evidence and their case plan. They have to disclose it to the Defense and the Defense then has to go through it, put it all together and plan their defense. It would be unrealistic to think the Crown would need to ask for more time when they are the first to have everything. It's kind of hard to defend against something when you don't know what you're defending yet.

However, both could be blamed for the length of time it takes to go to trial as they all have to schedule the court dates according to each one's availability. Not to mention the availability of the courtroom and the judge. Then we have the waste of court time with 5 minute appearances for administrative purposes that could be handled more efficiently by other methods outside the courtroom.

JMO

Alethea Dice said:

Yes, we know she did not get a deal for a reduced sentence. She couldn't for a first degree murder conviction. However, we also know that she was not put in isolation in prison, received counselling and knew about the faint hope clause.



http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2010/12/09/mcclintic-gets-counselling-lawyer-says

Of course, her assault charge a year and a half later could negatively affect that chance. A charge that she, again, was going to plead not guilty to until she found out they had intercepted a letter that she had written to a friend about the assault.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/terri-lynne-mcclintic-pleads-guilty-in-prison-assault-1.1267714

JMO

Click to expand...

And also this paragraph from your previous post, snipped by me as I haven't figured out or tried to figure out how to do multiple quotes. :blushing:

Snipped from AletheaDice's post #909.
We don't know what or if TLM cut a deal. What we do know is that the abduction and forcible confinement charges seemed to disappear and she increased her chances of getting out in 15 years under the Faint Hope Clause. If she did have a deal, I guess she reneged on it since she didn't testify to what was in her Agreed Statement of Facts.

Yes the Crown did not divulge their reason for withdrawing the other charge but it could not have been for reneging as per your suggestion mentioned above. The Agreed Statement of Facts dated May 19, 2010, happened April 30, 2010, while the trial for MR started in March 2012. The Crown had already withdrawn the kidnapping charge almost two years prior. Hey if there was an agreement to drop the kidnapping charge prior to her confession, if that's what it took to get a confession and a guilty plea, IMO it was so worth it to spare an unnecessary trial, trauma to Tori's loved ones and all the nonsense which goes hand in hand with a not guilty plea. Respectfully, how do you figure that will increase her chance for the faint hope clause? Bottom line is, all the evidence will be before the parole board regardless, including the original charges and let's not forget any charges prior and thereafter. If society is lucky, the won't live long enough to apply for parole and that's JMHO. Maybe it's a good thing she's not in SC. Same with the other who sadly is sitting in protective custody, who instigated Tori's abduction, then raped and murdered her with the help of TLM. Same sentiments to whomever murdered TB, LB and WM. Society does not need these monsters in MOO.

On April 30, 2010, Terri Lynn McClintic pleaded guilty to first degree murder of Victoria Elizabeth Stafford on April 8, 2009 based on an Agreed Statement of Facts and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Counsel for the Crown and the offender agreed that there were several bases of criminal liability to support the plea of guilty to first degree murder but that the primary one was that Victoria Elizabeth Stafford's murder took place during the commission of the offence of kidnapping and forcible confinement as provided for by s. 231 (5) (e) of the Criminal Code. Because the offence carries a mandatory penalty, counsel made no submissions about the sentence and I gave no reasons other than to note that the sentence was mandatory. The Crown withdrew the charge of kidnapping.

http://adidem.org/images/8/87/R._v._McClintic.pdf

Alethea Dice said:

The defense already agreed to the date for the preliminary hearing.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/preliminary-hearing-for-bosma-murder-suspects-begins-sept-2014-1.2423708

Either way, the full trial still won't be "immediately". It may happen a couple of months earlier than it would with a preliminary hearing, that's about it.

In the time leading up to the trial, it is the Defense asking for time because the Crown already has all, or most, of the evidence and their case plan. They have to disclose it to the Defense and the Defense then has to go through it, put it all together and plan their defense. It would be unrealistic to think the Crown would need to ask for more time when they are the first to have everything. It's kind of hard to defend against something when you don't know what you're defending yet.

However, both could be blamed for the length of time it takes to go to trial as they all have to schedule the court dates according to each one's availability. Not to mention the availability of the courtroom and the judge. Then we have the waste of court time with 5 minute appearances for administrative purposes that could be handled more efficiently by other methods outside the courtroom.

JMO

Click to expand...

BBM - Because these are very serious charges and matters, there are numerous reasons for these monthly and brief court appearances and they must be handled before a judge who acts as mediator on the proceedings and eventually the case. At least we have the modern convenience of the accused appearing via video. The accused may very much welcome these court appearance as it keeps them somewhat in the loop as to how the case against them is moving along. Who knows how often they get informative visits from their attorneys, as visits could be far and few between. MOO.

swedie said:

And also this paragraph from your previous post, snipped by me as I haven't figured out or tried to figure out how to do multiple quotes. :blushing:

Snipped from AletheaDice's post #909.
We don't know what or if TLM cut a deal. What we do know is that the abduction and forcible confinement charges seemed to disappear and she increased her chances of getting out in 15 years under the Faint Hope Clause. If she did have a deal, I guess she reneged on it since she didn't testify to what was in her Agreed Statement of Facts.

Yes the Crown did not divulge their reason for withdrawing the other charge but it could not have been for reneging as per your suggestion mentioned above. The Agreed Statement of Facts dated May 19, 2010, happened April 30, 2010, while the trial for MR started in March 2012. The Crown had already withdrawn the kidnapping charge almost two years prior. Hey if there was an agreement to drop the kidnapping charge prior to her confession, if that's what it took to get a confession and a guilty plea, IMO it was so worth it to spare an unnecessary trial, trauma to Tori's loved ones and all the nonsense which goes hand in hand with a not guilty plea. Respectfully, how do you figure that will increase her chance for the faint hope clause? Bottom line is, all the evidence will be before the parole board regardless, including the original charges and let's not forget any charges prior and thereafter. If society is lucky, the won't live long enough to apply for parole and that's JMHO. Maybe it's a good thing she's not in SC. Same with the other who sadly is sitting in protective custody, who instigated Tori's abduction, then raped and murdered her with the help of TLM. Same sentiments to whomever murdered TB, LB and WM. Society does not need these monsters in MOO.

On April 30, 2010, Terri Lynn McClintic pleaded guilty to first degree murder of Victoria Elizabeth Stafford on April 8, 2009 based on an Agreed Statement of Facts and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Counsel for the Crown and the offender agreed that there were several bases of criminal liability to support the plea of guilty to first degree murder but that the primary one was that Victoria Elizabeth Stafford's murder took place during the commission of the offence of kidnapping and forcible confinement as provided for by s. 231 (5) (e) of the Criminal Code. Because the offence carries a mandatory penalty, counsel made no submissions about the sentence and I gave no reasons other than to note that the sentence was mandatory. The Crown withdrew the charge of kidnapping.

http://adidem.org/images/8/87/R._v._McClintic.pdf

Click to expand...

Sorry? Maybe you could re-read my posts and what I was responding to in my second one. No where did I suggest that a charge was withdrawn because she reneged on a deal. Not sure where that came from. Also, note from my post - she did not get a deal "for a reduced sentence". Impossible to have that included in any kind of deal since the sentence for murder is not negotiable - it is a mandatory life sentence. I'm not sure what you are referring to or mean by the "2 years earlier".

In any event, I apologize for getting involved in any discussion regarding that trial. I know it's been brought up many times, but I truly don't believe that it belongs here, in this case's discussion.

JMO

swedie said:

BBM - Because these are very serious charges and matters, there are numerous reasons for these monthly and brief court appearances and they must be handled before a judge who acts as mediator on the proceedings and eventually the case. At least we have the modern convenience of the accused appearing via video. The accused may very much welcome these court appearance as it keeps them somewhat in the loop as to how the case against them is moving along. Who knows how often they get informative visits from their attorneys, as visits could be far and few between. MOO.

Click to expand...

If possible, could you please provide a link for the numerous reasons these 5 minute administrative appearances must be handled in court?

In 1992, it took an average of 4.3 appearances and 115 days to complete a criminal case. By 2007, a year before the province launched Justice on Target, those numbers had doubled to 9.2 appearances and 205 days.

<snip>

One area where experts cite a need for change is the province’s remand courts, where offenders routinely appear simply to have their cases adjourned to another date. Often just seconds long, the appearances allow the Crown and defence to provide an update to the presiding judge or justice of the peace. Postponements are frequently required when disclosure materials are not ready, or an accused person is going through the process of retaining a lawyer. Such matters could be dealt with much more expeditiously via email or telephone, Mr. Moustacalis noted, as is the case in other provinces such as Alberta.

“You’re constrained [in Ontario] by how you can increase the efficiency of what’s essentially an appearance-based, paper-based system,” he said.

Click to expand...

More in the article about what other Provinces are doing to reduce time delays in taking a case to trial. I'm not sure why Ontario seems to be stuck in this "appearance based, paper based" system, but maybe it's time to learn a lesson from the other Provinces.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/09/courting-disaster-the-long-long-wait-for-justice-in-ontario/

JMO