Possibly there is no way to prove that they came from Millard?
Perhaps Millard said he didn't write them, that someone else wrote them for him?
Possibly there is no way to prove that they came from Millard?
It makes no sense to me that he gave the DVR to CN. Get rid of it. He didn't really get rid of the gun either. He gave it to someone to hold onto for him., There's a pattern. He passes things off to others, whether it be ordering stuff, doing stuff, holding stuff. He's always at arms length.
Ran out of time? This guy was driving all over Southern Ontario! He could easily have stopped somewhere and dumped stuff. Better to attempt to dump it than to be found with it I say.
I agree. I may have started the speculation, but I was just questioning why Leitch would ask the officer NOT to mention the "second item" seized. We don't even know if this was the letters. It may be something completely irrelevant. It may be introduced at a later time. I doubt we have heard the last of the letters. MOO
QuCould evidence that the Crown was going to use to "prove" the statements in their Opening Statement be now deemed inadmissible? I would have thought these admissibility issues would have been dealt with prior to trial so both sides know what they are dealing with and don't go making statements they won't be able to back up. But possibly because this was a direct indictment the rules are different? Anyone have any thoughts?
I think people may be jumping to conclusions about the letters.
Edit: I'm not actually sure what we're arguing about--if your main point is that DM was an incompetent criminal, I heartily agree.
Both sides know what is admissible evidence and what is not (with rare exceptions for possibly ambiguous cases). I doubt that, so far, any evidence the Crown needs to support its opening statement has been affected by inadmissibility rulings.
I cant understand how the defense managed to get those letters inadmissible? Its so frustrating, but I don' t understand - if the letters were inadmissible- wouldn't this be brought up after the Crown's opening statement? I'm very lost.. very very lost.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't remember them being deemed inadmissible. When did this happen? Hypothetically speaking, if this did in fact happen then the writing in them could have been matched to his writing, unless they were typed, and thus they could be traced to him.
Both sides know what is admissible evidence and what is not (with rare exceptions for possibly ambiguous cases). I doubt that, so far, any evidence the Crown needs to support its opening statement has been affected by inadmissibility rulings.
Many issues are dealt with prior to trial.
What can and does happen, though, is that a witness may say something, spontaneously, that the Crown did not expect and did not wish them to say, and that is in itself inadmissible, as happened with the witness Cook. This complicates matters because IIRC the Crown cannot make an objection to its own witness.
However, it seems the Crown is now on the alert to prevent a witness from saying something inadmissible, as in the exchange with the officer who searched CN's bedroom. The reason why the officer can't name the other item found may relate to a publication ban in another case, to an ongoing investigation, or something else. Whatever it is, the Crown wanted to avoid another delay occasioned by such a misstep.
A few musings, it sounds as if they are getting ready to introduce the video of the early morning hours at the hangar. Oh Boy, that's going to be tough.
Whatever the 2nd thing retrieved was may be introduced later and they don't want it to clutter up their cadence in presenting evidence. Everybody knows about the letter, it was in the opening statement so I can't imagine that it's now deemed inadmissible but who knows.
Slow slogging so far this week. Hard days for everybody.
Obviously you didn't follow Jodi Arias trial. Now that was long and slow, it took 2-3 weeks to go through 1 witness. Then delay after delay, I'm sure most weeks only had 8 hours of testimony in total.
"Yesterday we heard some evidence from Mr. Cook as to if the device [The Eliminator] was used on more than one occasion. That was improper opinion evidence," Justice Goodman says to the jury. Cook was not in a position to offer that opinion, he adds. "You are to ignore that answer."
by Adam Carter 1:53 PM
Cook is led in, but then immediately excused.
by Adam Carter 1:54 PM
***Good luck unringing that bell