Canada - Terry, 27, & Hailey Blanchette, 2, Blairmore, AB, 14 Sept 2015 #2

[KatieLiz]

Since a jury trial requires a unanimous vote to convict, it's not a risk at all to be tried by jury in an innocent plea. It only takes one vote and as has been mentioned here a couple times, Jodi Arias is prime example of how that can work to the defendants benefit. There are many more.

Jian Ghomeshi elected judge alone. He's guilty.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/jian-ghomeshi-pleads-not-guilty-to-5-charges-1.2590012

The disadvantage of trial by jury is that the verdict can be appealed by both the suspect and the prosecution, and a new trial set. This can go on for years, much like the Amanda Knox and Raffael Sollecito trial. An appeal of a Judge alone verdict is unlikely (correct me if I'm wrong) to be appealed and, as a result, land on a jury's lap.

Trial by Judge alone fast tracks the process, much like Rudy Guede in the murder of Meredith Kercher. In any case, the decision for trial by jury means that both the suspect and prosecution can appeal a verdict (on valid legal grounds), and the suspect can do it all over again and again (dragging out the process), and then appeal up the chain, albeit at his own expense, potentially to the Supreme Court, like the murderers of Victoria Stafford. He's looking for every possible exit.

Jian Ghomeshi, on the other hand, is without doubt, responsible for some problematic activities that violate the law - yet he's going to most likely argue that the "culture" of the CBC enabled him to get out of hand ... just a guess.

I don't actually have an Opinion on the guilty/innocent pleas vs. judge/jury, I was just trying to explain someone else's post because I understood what they were trying to say

I agree, it is just a theory. Nothing is Concrete. I'm sure there are Many examples of Guilty choosing judge and innocent choosing jury.

 

[blacksheep]

Jian Ghomeshi elected judge alone. He's guilty.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/jian-ghomeshi-pleads-not-guilty-to-5-charges-1.2590012

The disadvantage of trial by jury is that the verdict can be appealed by both the suspect and the prosecution, and a new trial set. This can go on for years, much like the Amanda Knox and Raffael Sollecito trial. An appeal of a Judge alone verdict is unlikely (correct me if I'm wrong) to be appealed and, as a result, land on a jury's lap.

Trial by Judge alone fast tracks the process, much like Rudy Guede in the murder of Meredith Kercher. In any case, the decision for trial by jury means that both the suspect and prosecution can appeal a verdict (on valid legal grounds), and the suspect can do it all over again and again (dragging out the process), and then appeal up the chain, albeit at his own expense, potentially to the Supreme Court, like the murderers of Victoria Stafford. He's looking for every possible exit.

Jian Ghomeshi, on the other hand, is without doubt, responsible for some problematic activities that violate the law - yet he's going to most likely argue that the "culture" of the CBC enabled him to get out of hand ... just a guess.

A verdict by judge alone is just as likely to be appealed if the defence can find any questionable findings indicating that the judge may have been biased. It happens frequently. Jian has had so much media attention that selecting an impartial jury would have been almost impossible in TO. His only other hope was to be tried in a different country. IMO

 

[otto]

I don't know what nationality you are, but this is Canadian law, as per the Canada Criminal Code.

I think indignity to body is fairly broad, and would also include dumping a body in the forest. I've always assumed that "indignity to body" could be attached to anything less that a proper funeral, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Do you have a quick link to the "indignity to a body" clause in the Lois notes?

 

[otto]

Since a jury trial requires a unanimous vote to convict, it's not a risk at all to be tried by jury in an innocent plea. It only takes one vote and as has been mentioned here a couple times, Jodi Arias is prime example of how that can work to the defendants benefit. There are many more.

"In Canada, the jury must reach a unanimous decision on criminal cases but not in civil cases.[2] If the jury cannot reach a unanimous decision, a hung jury is declared. A new panel of jurors will be selected for the new trial." ~ wikipeida

In Canada, the prosecution can appeal a verdict, meaning that no verdict is safe with a jury.

 

[otto]

A verdict by judge alone is just as likely to be appealed if the defence can find any questionable findings indicating that the judge may have been biased. It happens frequently. Jian has had so much media attention that selecting an impartial jury would have been almost impossible in TO. His only other hope was to be tried in a different country. IMO

Yes, equal probability that the prosecution, or the suspect, will appeal a verdict after a trial by Judge alone. However, when the first trial selection is by Judge alone, and the verdict is appealed, can the second trial be a jury trial?

 

[otto]

I don't actually have an Opinion on the guilty/innocent pleas bs judge/jury, I was just trying to explain someone else's post because I understood what they were trying to say

I agree, it is just a theory. Nothing is Concrete. I'm sure there are Many examples of Guilty choosing judge and innocent choosing jury.

I'm pretty sure that the selection of trial by Judge, or trial by Jury, is not a predictor of guilt or innocence.

 

[Snowglobe]

Criminal defence lawyers study how to work a jury. If a lawyer can get someone off on a case that members of the public thought was a sure finding of guilty, other defence lawyers will study it and learn.

This is what the Crown will be up against when and if DS goes to trial.

First-degree murder charges carry a high burden of proof.

 

[blacksheep]

Yes, equal probability that the prosecution, or the suspect, will appeal a verdict after a trial by Judge alone. However, when the first trial selection is by Judge alone, and the verdict is appealed, can the second trial be a jury trial?

This is a good question. I am not completely sure of the answer, someone else might know more, but generally a Supreme Court ruling that is appealed will face the appeals panel which is 3 judges. I'm guessing though there is no definitive answer here because it could be dependant on the charges and reason for the appeal. If either side could substantiate just cause for re-trial, I'm guessing it could go to a jury?

 

[ElleElle]

I don't actually have an Opinion on the guilty/innocent pleas bs judge/jury, I was just trying to explain someone else's post because I understood what they were trying to say

I agree, it is just a theory. Nothing is Concrete. I'm sure there are Many examples of Guilty choosing judge and innocent choosing jury.

Found this:

Right to trial by jury[edit]

Section 11(f) provides that

“11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ...
(f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;
”
The right to a jury is protected by section 11(f). The Supreme Court considered this right in R. v. Pan; R. v. Sawyer (2001), which saw a challenge to the constitutionality of section 649 of the Criminal Code, which prohibited the use of evidence regarding the deliberation of the jury. The Supreme Court found the erosion of the secrecy of the jury would have a negative impact on the ability of a jury to decide a case and would affect an individual's right to jury trial under section 11(f) of the Charter. It is required under the principles of fundamental justice to have an impartial jury.

Source ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secti...of_Rights_and_Freedoms#Right_to_trial_by_jury

 

[ElleElle]

I think indignity to body is fairly broad, and would also include dumping a body in the forest. I've always assumed that "indignity to body" could be attached to anything less that a proper funeral, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Do you have a quick link to the "indignity to a body" clause in the Lois notes?

It could be she was not buried?

"182. Every one who
(a) neglects, without lawful excuse, to perform any duty that is imposed on him by law or that he undertakes with reference to the burial of a dead human body or human remains, or
(b) improperly or indecently interferes with or offers any indignity to a dead human body or human remains, whether buried or not,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 178."

Source ~ http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-182.html

 

[Leeman68]

I think there's a reason that the suspect borrowed a van and it wasn't just to ensure that he wasn't driving a vehicle that is registered to him. I think that he spend time with the 2 year old girl in the van, and that after murdering her at that remote location, he looked for a way to eliminate her remains. He settled on putting her remains in the midst of several houses and trailers. I highly doubt that she was left there in a condition where she could be recognized as the abducted child. I think it's more likely that her remains were burned - an indignity to her body.

I would like to know more about evidence found at the house. For example, was the weapon left at the scene, and were there any prints on the weapon? Is there anything to connect the suspect with the actual murder - keeping in mind that he had probably been in the house at another time and evidence of him in the house is not evidence that he committed the murder.

If there's nothing in Terry's murder that connects to the suspect, then the conviction hinges on connecting the suspect to the child's remains. The remains are most likely held by the coroner's office to ensure that the defence can analyse the remains for the purpose of identifying the remains as Hailey. If the remains are gone, the defence might argue that they do not belong to Hailey and that she is still missing. If that argument is successful, and there's nothing to connect the suspect to Terry's murder, he might not be convicted.

Weren't there reports that said that DS told the RCMP where HDB could be found?

Also, DS's sister-in-law said "We have to live knowing that someone in our family was involved in causing so much pain and hurt"

 

[ElleElle]

I wonder if indignity to a body is a worse charge than kidnapping? I would think, since it is tied to a murder?

 

[Jasper52]

I wonder if indignity to a body is a worse charge than kidnapping? I would think, since it is tied to a murder?

Yes and no - too many factors to consider: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-279.html

 

[ElleElle]

Yes and no - too many factors to consider: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-279.html

So,

"Kidnapping

279. (1) Every person commits an offence who kidnaps a person with intent
(a) to cause the person to be confined or imprisoned against the person’s will;
(b) to cause the person to be unlawfully sent or transported out of Canada against the person’s will; or
(c) to hold the person for ransom or to service against the person’s will."

This tells me she was not taken against her will, because she was already dead. JMO

Ans maybe they are keeping her body for autopsy to determine the time of death?

 

[otto]

This strikes me as an horrific attack on such a small female child by such an abnormal man. The man who is attracted to such young children, without hesitation in attacking such young children, should never again be released from prison ... like Austin Sigg. Men like that cannot be reformed.

The fact that this man, Saretzky, murdered a vulnerable child's father to access his 2 year old child is an eye-opener in terms of interpreting children who are at risk. I have wondered, from the beginning, whether the fact that a 27 year old male had a 2 year old female child in his care factored into perceptions about his, and his child's, vulnerability. I suspect that, although he fought to the death to save his daughter's life, his daughter was perceived as more vulnerable than children who live with their moms, or children with two married parents in part because I suspect that society perceives a child in the care of a father as less protected than a child in the care of her mother.

... all an opinion

 

[otto]

So,

"Kidnapping

279. (1) Every person commits an offence who kidnaps a person with intent
(a) to cause the person to be confined or imprisoned against the person’s will;
(b) to cause the person to be unlawfully sent or transported out of Canada against the person’s will; or
(c) to hold the person for ransom or to service against the person’s will."

This tells me she was not taken against her will, because she was already dead. JMO

Ans maybe they are keeping her body for autopsy to determine the time of death?

What exactly led you to the conclusion that the child who was reported screaming as the van raced down the road was dead?

 

[Jasper52]

So,

"Kidnapping

279. (1) Every person commits an offence who kidnaps a person with intent
(a) to cause the person to be confined or imprisoned against the person’s will;
(b) to cause the person to be unlawfully sent or transported out of Canada against the person’s will; or
(c) to hold the person for ransom or to service against the person’s will."

This tells me she was not taken against her will, because she was already dead. JMO

Ans maybe they are keeping her body for autopsy to determine the time of death?

We don't know if HDB was already dead. I made reference in an earlier post to possible reasons for not releasing HDB for burial. Anything is possible. JMO

(a.2) if the person referred to in paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) is under 16 years of age, to imprisonment for life and, unless the person who commits the offence is a parent, guardian or person having the lawful care or charge of the person referred to in that paragraph, to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years; and
(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

So,

"Kidnapping

279. (1) Every person commits an offence who kidnaps a person with intent
(a) to cause the person to be confined or imprisoned against the person’s will;
(b) to cause the person to be unlawfully sent or transported out of Canada against the person’s will; or
(c) to hold the person for ransom or to service against the person’s will."

This tells me she was not taken against her will, because she was already dead. JMO

Ans maybe they are keeping her body for autopsy to determine the time of death?

It's what you can prove. Kidnapping charges may or may not come. Is it kidnapping if he has the permission from a parent or guardian to take her?

If the body was in any condition to accurately determine the TOD, it would have been calculated long ago.

Chances are there is no direct proof yet that she was alive when she left the house. Thus the extended forensics. The indignity charge hints that the body was processed in order to destroy forensic evidence. Thus the need for even greater time for the forensics.

There will also have to be consideration given for the defendant's case and possible independent examination of the remains.

 

[otto]

We don't know if HDB was already dead. I made reference in an earlier post to possible reasons for not releasing HDB for burial. Anything is possible. JMO

(a.2) if the person referred to in paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) is under 16 years of age, to imprisonment for life and, unless the person who commits the offence is a parent, guardian or person having the lawful care or charge of the person referred to in that paragraph, to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years; and
(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

I had to skip a couple of back pages ... what reason is there for releasing the body of the stabbed victim who was found in the house, but withholding the remains of the victim who was abducted from the residence and found within meters of several homes?

 

[Richmond]

What exactly led you to the conclusion that the child who was reported screaming as the van raced down the road was dead?

I'm not sure it was ever reported that the child was screaming AS the van raced down the street. A scream was heard and witness(es) saw a van race down the street. We don't know the time lapse. IMO, I don't think she was dead when she was taken. But the scream itself isn't proof. She could have screamed right before she was killed and then taken.