Abitcountry
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2016
- Messages
- 561
- Reaction score
- 20
fftobed:Good night all.....guests too !
First time poster. I was a friend of Wayne, employee of Carl and had met DM several times while he was a child. I would love to think he is innocent of this.. The most damning aspect of this Imo his reaction after the fact. Seem's significantly proofed that he was there. Myself, and I think 99.999% of people would be a wreck if they had accidentally killed someone (even in self defence). The one Constant throughout all the self serving (protecting) testimony is that Dellen wasn't rattled even a bit.. I reluctantly have a hard time believing it was an unplanned or accidental murder
C. The Adequacy of the Instruction to the Jury on Reasonable Doubt
(1) The Decisions in Lifchus and Bisson
81 As Iacobucci J. ably describes, our recent decisions in Lifchus, supra, and R. v. Bisson, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 306, provide the framework for a review of a trial judge’s charge to the jury on reasonable doubt. I wish to emphasize the following points regarding these decisions ...
First time poster. I was a friend of Wayne, employee of Carl and had met DM several times while he was a child. I would love to think he is innocent of this.. The most damning aspect of this Imo his reaction after the fact. Seem's significantly proofed that he was there. Myself, and I think 99.999% of people would be a wreck if they had accidentally killed someone (even in self defence). The one Constant throughout all the self serving (protecting) testimony is that Dellen wasn't rattled even a bit.. I reluctantly have a hard time believing it was an unplanned or accidental murder
They have to both make the case that this was MS's phone (by content) and present what was found on that phone alone, first.
Then I guess they will present the DM phone, and THEN a presentation that links that conversations between the two, IMO.
I actually thought that TD was strategically probing and simultaneously restrained in his cross of AM, and I thought TD was highly effective today, IMO.
TD didn't need to highlight AM's character flaws as AM did that himself by his own words and actions, long before this crime, in the days leading up to it, and in its aftermath, even when AM knew TB had been murdered, IMO.
DM said about TB's truck to SS in a text: "What truck?" I say to you and others about AM: What character?
When it came to AM speaking about his fear, what I found most compelling was AM's fear for himself in the circumstances he found himself in, after being charged with first degree murder, IMO. AM said he was afraid of MS, yet that assertion did not come across to me as believable as it was not mentioned at all when AM testified that he was in the presence of MS when AM says that DM talked about stealing a truck, IMO, nor when AM talked on the stand about making the drop, IMO. He said earlier that he just didn't want to be near MS or be involved in the crime, and that rang true to me, IMO, because I see AM acting out of self-interest and in protection-from-suspicion mode from the get-go, IMO.
I suspect because AM did not want to get into any trouble with LE if he had been caught making that drop directly to MS, IMO, he had good reason to want to avoid MS if there was drugs and/or gun(s) in the items he was dropping in MS's girlfriend's or her sister's "hood", IMO. At no point that I recall did AM suggest that he had felt frightened by MS, rather AM said he felt angry at DM supposedly for DM's intention to steal a truck, IMO, and that to me sounds rather unlikely given that AM himself had on previous occasions participated in thefts and knew about others (Harley) and AM knew what DM was all about, IMO. Why was this particular theft the kind that would suddenly inspire anger from AM? It sounds to me like that would have been a first for AM to challenge DM over a theft, and since AM said too on the stand that he found DM intimidating. AM is likely selectively scared and intimidated by DM and/or MS now, when in the past he eagerly went along to aid and abet other crimes with them without so much as raising a brow in concern, IMO.
From my perspective, TD made his points very clear regarding AM. I wonder how the jury will interpret AM and his testimony?
All MOO.