Dellen Millard: Innocent Dupe? Alternative Theories

[MuhGruff]

If DM is a violent psychopath then le could have taken him down with a tactical unit however given his somewhat high profile, lifestyle and other factors le may not have thought he'd put up a fight where ms has had more history therefore more le support.

Not all I'm ychopaths are violent but if dm is then all the money in the world wouldn't stop him from stealing cars and killing/hurting people if that's what he wants to do. It's the rush that drives them. Just like Wenonah Ryder and her shoplifting problems...

No one at this point has sufficient info to profile either suspects to say who is more likely but neither would surprise me. DM is a narcissistic playboy wannabe so I lean more to him as the killer but ultimately I think they both had their hands dirty in this.

Just because the truck wasn't chopped up doesn't mean they didn't intend to, many people here already posted their belief that they thought they were going to get away with this so if they took their time chopping the truck it's not a far stretch to assume their small chop shop was a personal hobby rather than a professional enterprise.

I have 2 kids roughly tb kids' age and I've seen sb and her daughter at local events, it terrify me more to think this was random bexcuse it could've been me or my boss who was selling a similar truck. I'd rather believe it was a conspiracy because I'd feel safer- my 'otherwise boring life' doesn't propel me to want either scenario because they are both horrible. <mod snip>

 

[swedie]

IIRC we've been all over this discussion numerous times. Rights are rights and it is up to the individual as to whether they chose to cooperate with LE or not. All defense lawyers will tell someone accused of a crime to remain silent. LE will also give you that advice along with your right to contact a lawyer. I would exercise those rights also if I was guilty of a crime, it's just common sense. To remain silent would be the only hope in H E double toothpicks of getting off the charges. Most times than not, that is what guilty people do; exercise that right. To plead guilty of first degree murder means the inevitable; 25 years in prison. So why not use that right and hope your lawyer can raise reasonable doubt. Bottom line is the evidence will speak for itself. I believe it did from day one before arrests were made prompting the right to remain silent on both accused. During that initial, long interrogation conducted by LE with DM, certainly they would have given him plenty of information related to the evidence they have against him and his partner. MOO.

When and how can the police make an arrest?
The police officer's powers of arrest differ depending on whether the offence is a summary or indictable offence.

Summary offences are usually minor types of charges. They include, for example, causing a disturbance, and unlawful assembly. Breaking provincial laws, such as motor vehicle offences and liquor charges, are also examples of summary offences. A police officer can arrest you for a summary offence if you are found committing it, or if a warrant has been issued for your arrest. To make a lawful arrest, the police officer should identify himself/herself, and state that you are under arrest. The police must tell you the reason for the arrest.

Indictable offences are more serious than a summary offence and carry heavier penalties. Indictable offences include such charges as theft (over $5,000), forgery, breaking and entering, breaking out of jail, perjury, robbery and murder. For an indictable offence, the police have wider powers of arrest. If a police officer finds you committing an indictable offence, he/she can arrest you. Also, if an officer believes "on reasonable and probable grounds", that you have committed, or are about to commit an indictable offence, the officer can arrest you.

http://www.legal-info-legale.nb.ca/en/law_police_you_rights

 

[Archangel7]

Remaining silent is a double edged sword especially if the accused testifies.

Juries generally question testimony relied upon in Court as a defense by the accused that wasn't mentioned at all or was "conveniently excluded" upon initial arrest and initial questioning.

It pretty much smells like a fabrication after the fact. If one claims the right to silence and enters "overwhelming evidence of innocence" in Court the Jury thinks along this line..."well why didn't you state that initially and avoid the charges and this whole process?"

In some countries the guilty have the right to remain silent, the innocent don't need to.

 

[Sillybilly]

Even with enough legal background to know my Charter rights, if I was ever accused of a crime and was innocent I would proclaim my innocence to the rooftops right from the start and provide any and all information/knowledge I could to assist with an investigation. Regardless of knowing my "rights", I would worry that without being able to convey my honesty, integrity, credibility through my own words, my silence could possibly be perceived as guilt.

Apologies to all good lawyers out there, but I had to chuckle when I read one of AD's links upthread .. in his first paragraph, the lawyer states:

If they have detained you, it&#8217;s because they already have enough evidence to arrest you and they want to see if you will admit it and thus, give them an even stronger case against you. If they have evidence to arrest you for a crime, they will. If they don&#8217;t, they won&#8217;t. It&#8217;s as simple as that.

Sounds like this particular lawyer assumes all his client are guilty (to a small degree, of course) right out the gate.
:floorlaugh:

 

[Alethea Dice]

Even with enough legal background to know my Charter rights, if I was ever accused of a crime and was innocent I would proclaim my innocence to the rooftops right from the start and provide any and all information/knowledge I could to assist with an investigation. Regardless of knowing my "rights", I would worry that without being able to convey my honesty, integrity, credibility through my own words, my silence could possibly be perceived as guilt.

Apologies to all good lawyers out there, but I had to chuckle when I read one of AD's links upthread .. in his first paragraph, the lawyer states:



Sounds like this particular lawyer assumes all his client are guilty (to a small degree, of course) right out the gate.
:floorlaugh:

I would hope that they have enough evidence before they arrest you, even if you're innocent and that evidence could also point to a few other people. It's one thing to have enough evidence to suggest you committed the crime, then they have to have enough evidence to charge you and then show the prosecutor that there is enough evidence to take to trial with a good chance of success. If they had all the evidence they needed to prove your guilt, there would be no need to question you and try to get a confession. The whole point of questioning is to get you to confess or to gain more evidence to use against you.

You'll note that 6 of the 10 reasons that lawyer gives start out with "even if you are innocent".

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

Remaining silent is a double edged sword especially if the accused testifies.

Juries generally question testimony relied upon in Court as a defense by the accused that wasn't mentioned at all or was "conveniently excluded" upon initial arrest and initial questioning.

It pretty much smells like a fabrication after the fact. If one claims the right to silence and enters "overwhelming evidence of innocence" in Court the Jury thinks along this line..."well why didn't you state that initially and avoid the charges and this whole process?"

In some countries the guilty have the right to remain silent, the innocent don't need to.

If that's the case, and a potential juror really feels that way, then they have a legal and moral obligation to advise the court that they cannot remain unprejudiced and, therefore, should not serve on the jury.

In Canadian law your silence cannot be used to prejudice you. No presumptions or negative connotations can be made against a defendant because he or she remained silent.

http://currielaw.ca/2011/03/after-arrest-silence-is-golden/

Thankfully, LE do not qualify to serve as jurors.

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/jury/general_jury_duty_info.asp

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

Bottom line is the evidence will speak for itself. I believe it did from day one before arrests were made prompting the right to remain silent on both accused. During that initial, long interrogation conducted by LE with DM, certainly they would have given him plenty of information related to the evidence they have against him and his partner. MOO.

I'd be interested in hearing what all this evidence is that you believe they had before the arrests were made, in particular before DM's arrest. What was all that information that you think LE provided him with. At the time of DM's arrest, I believe all they had was a cell phone registered to an unknown name, a physical description of two men, and a not too clear surveillance video of an SUV type vehicle following them. (Did they even have that video yet? Not sure.) They didn't even know if TB was alive or dead at that point.

JMO

 

[robynhood]

I think the IMPORTANCE is the evidence the crown has now...as we will eventually heading into Court...a conviction will obviously rest on the evidence to date..JMO..and I believe all posters have on websleuther's have discussed this endlessly...JMO ...swede has a thread listing evidence too...I am sure that with the time that has gone since MAY...the accused both know fully what has been given..

JMO again...why would BOTH MS & DM have a reporter come to see them ....and than turn and say ...I wish I could tell you ....but I cannot...why bother having a reporter even come???....darn curious on that one?????..JMO again....robynhood!

 

[swedie]

I'd be interested in hearing what all this evidence is that you believe they had before the arrests were made, in particular before DM's arrest. What was all that information that you think LE provided him with. At the time of DM's arrest, I believe all they had was a cell phone registered to an unknown name, a physical description of two men, and a not too clear surveillance video of an SUV type vehicle following them. (Did they even have that video yet? Not sure.) They didn't even know if TB was alive or dead at that point.

JMO

Well because there is a PB I can only speculate at this time, but according to the links regarding the right to remain silent recently posted, LE must have had some pretty damning evidence other then just a description of the two accused, DM's tattoo, a burner cell phone registered under a bogus name but traced back to DM and a grainy surveillance video. Take a look at R Williams case for example. Initially what got him caught was simply evidence of tire tracks from his SUV. It snowballed from there leading to extensive, overwhelming evidence.

So how's that as an example of evidence? Different case of course but IMHO a great example of someone with suggested similarities to DM; supposedly intelligent, humble, had a very comfortable, financial life and yet managed to get caught in serious criminal activities. But unlike DM RW had a very important, demanding, high ranking and busy career (with the military) and apparently more ambition. The amount of evidence found during the investigation was overwhelming and yet RW himself collected this evidence. AD you also followed the Victoria S case. Remember all the evidence collected in that case? LE did not go just on TLM's words alone; they had evidence against him, a lot of evidence. Initially they had that tell all video from the high school which showed TLM walking away with Tori. On that video also was MR in his Honda driving not only once but twice past the school and again entering and exiting the nursing home parking lot. I don't believe for one second that LE are lacking in evidence to convict both accused, but then again it is just MHO.

We will have to wait until the PB is lifted in order to find out what the evidence is against DM and MS, but I hope RW's case sheds some reality on the high possibility LE have much more than what you have listed. Even if those things you listed are just a start, that makes me feel more confident LE had gathered much, much more evidence at the start of their investigation, and rightfully and lawfully have protected from sharing with the MSM. What they did release was only on a need to know basis to gain tips, more evidence and information from the public. All JMO.

 

[swedie]

I think the IMPORTANCE is the evidence the crown has now...as we will eventually heading into Court...a conviction will obviously rest on the evidence to date..JMO..and I believe all posters have on websleuther's have discussed this endlessly...JMO ...swede has a thread listing evidence too...I am sure that with the time that has gone since MAY...the accused both know fully what has been given..

JMO again...why would BOTH MS & DM have a reporter come to see them ....and than turn and say ...I wish I could tell you ....but I cannot...why bother having a reporter even come???....darn curious on that one?????..JMO again....robynhood!

I brought the possible evidence list over here which RH mentioned in her post. HTH and MOO.

Possible evidence

*tire tracks left by vehicles at the scene,
*boot/shoe prints found at the scene,
*DNA/prints/blood found in numerous places,
*eye witnesses,
*video surveillance, from BO's place of business or other businesses in that area, TB's house suggesting Yukon was seen following TB's truck, other videos from Brantford (motel, gas station ??),
*GPS on TB's truck or DM's Yukon,
*cell phone records, TB's cell phone with accused murderers DNA/prints,
*burner phone itself and/or records,
*farmland neighbours, witnesses and picture(s), suggesting there are more pictures than what we are privy to,
*incinerator,
*DM's Yukon,
*DM's trailer,
*murderers clothing worn the night of the murder,
*shoes/boots,
*mud or dirt from farmland inside TB's truck or DM's trailer along with impressions/prints inside left by shoes/boots,
*computers, xboxes/PS2(3), owned by the accused,
*phone records from MS's home,
*phone records from DM's phone,
*cell phone tower records,
*friend or acquaintances of DM and MS who gave damning evidence/information,
*the stolen HD with its trailer and any evidence found inside the hangar, showing criminal activity tying to the crime of TB,
*evidence found inside MS's home, clothing, weapon,
*evidence found inside DM's home, " , "


*fingerprints and DNA lifted from BO's truck, ex. door handles, steering wheel, ect.

Anyone feel free to add to this list. I will try to come up with more but am too tired at this time. :bedtime:fftobed:

 

[Eldee]

I think perhaps, LE has eyewitness testimony from the driver of the Yukon. I just find it strange that they were looking for a third suspect, the driver of the Yukon, and then just a couple of days later, they retracted that statement and nothing more was said. Whoever that person is, is just one more piece of the puzzle. He/she had no idea of the plan to murder TB, but can place both MS and DM at TB's home that night. I think that if he/she was complicit in the murder you would have three suspects sitting in jail today. Just my opinion. He/she may be a friend or employee of DM that is unaware of what DM is capable of in the company of MS and has a conscience. DM thought that this person would never go to the police with information thus the reason he was not hiding from them. Pretty smug, if you ask me. IMO

 

[robynhood]

I brought the possible evidence list over here which RH mentioned in her post. HTH and MOO.

Possible evidence

*tire tracks left by vehicles at the scene,
*boot/shoe prints found at the scene,
*DNA/prints/blood found in numerous places,
*eye witnesses,
*video surveillance, from BO's place of business or other businesses in that area, TB's house suggesting Yukon was seen following TB's truck, other videos from Brantford (motel, gas station ??),
*GPS on TB's truck or DM's Yukon,
*cell phone records, TB's cell phone with accused murderers DNA/prints,
*burner phone itself and/or records,
*farmland neighbours, witnesses and picture(s), suggesting there are more pictures than what we are privy to,
*incinerator,
*DM's Yukon,
*DM's trailer,
*murderers clothing worn the night of the murder,
*shoes/boots,
*mud or dirt from farmland inside TB's truck or DM's trailer along with impressions/prints inside left by shoes/boots,
*computers, xboxes/PS2(3), owned by the accused,
*phone records from MS's home,
*phone records from DM's phone,
*cell phone tower records,
*friend or acquaintances of DM and MS who gave damning evidence/information,
*the stolen HD with its trailer and any evidence found inside the hangar, showing criminal activity tying to the crime of TB,
*evidence found inside MS's home, clothing, weapon,
*evidence found inside DM's home, " , "


*fingerprints and DNA lifted from BO's truck, ex. door handles, steering wheel, ect.

Anyone feel free to add to this list. I will try to come up with more but am too tired at this time. :bedtime:fftobed:

I am sure others will add to this. .I am too tired also plus I feel the SAME.. the crown will reveal all evidence once this starts in court...terrible I feel from other posts that it may not be until 2015...with a PUBLICATION ban in place it makes it difficult to speculate ....as you mentioned above there was HUGE evidence in tori case ( yes another totally different case) which unfortunately we heard all the horrible details...IMO we are in for many SURPRISES in this case too.. I feel this is obvious...( look at swede's list again)...IMO ...this can not be ignored as this poster above me states...a test drive was taken ...with DM , MS and poor TB...what exactly happened shall be presented in court and it shall be interesting to FINALLY hear from their defense too.........:floorlaugh:the end..I do not have much to say ...awaiting trial to hear the facts so I can tweet them in here....robynhood...!:facepalm:

 

[Alethea Dice]

Well because there is a PB I can only speculate at this time, but according to the links regarding the right to remain silent recently posted, LE must have had some pretty damning evidence other then just a description of the two accused, DM's tattoo, a burner cell phone registered under a bogus name but traced back to DM and a grainy surveillance video. Take a look at R Williams case for example. Initially what got him caught was simply evidence of tire tracks from his SUV. It snowballed from there leading to extensive, overwhelming evidence.

So how's that as an example of evidence? Different case of course but IMHO a great example of someone with suggested similarities to DM; supposedly intelligent, humble, had a very comfortable, financial life and yet managed to get caught in serious criminal activities. But unlike DM RW had a very important, demanding, high ranking and busy career (with the military) and apparently more ambition. The amount of evidence found during the investigation was overwhelming and yet RW himself collected this evidence. AD you also followed the Victoria S case. Remember all the evidence collected in that case? LE did not go just on TLM's words alone; they had evidence against him, a lot of evidence. Initially they had that tell all video from the high school which showed TLM walking away with Tori. On that video also was MR in his Honda driving not only once but twice past the school and again entering and exiting the nursing home parking lot. I don't believe for one second that LE are lacking in evidence to convict both accused, but then again it is just MHO.

We will have to wait until the PB is lifted in order to find out what the evidence is against DM and MS, but I hope RW's case sheds some reality on the high possibility LE have much more than what you have listed. Even if those things you listed are just a start, that makes me feel more confident LE had gathered much, much more evidence at the start of their investigation, and rightfully and lawfully have protected from sharing with the MSM. What they did release was only on a need to know basis to gain tips, more evidence and information from the public. All JMO.

Thanks, Swedie, but that doesn't really answer the question. You said that you believed the evidence spoke for itself "from day one before arrests were made", and that LE gave DM lots of information about that evidence when they interrogated him. I was curious about what all you thought they had for evidence that early on in the investigation that would lead you to that belief. There was no publication ban at the time. There was no body, no truck, no location for the crime. The question had nothing to do with what they may or may not have found later.

I'm sorry, but your list of possible evidence doesn't really mean a lot to me. More than half of the list consists of things that are possible in any investigation and are total unknowns in this particular case at this time (and will remain unknowns until the trial). I can't base my opinion on his guilt or level of guilt on speculations that they might possibly have some of these items or they might not.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

I think the IMPORTANCE is the evidence the crown has now...as we will eventually heading into Court...a conviction will obviously rest on the evidence to date..JMO..and I believe all posters have on websleuther's have discussed this endlessly...JMO ...swede has a thread listing evidence too...I am sure that with the time that has gone since MAY...the accused both know fully what has been given..

JMO again...why would BOTH MS & DM have a reporter come to see them ....and than turn and say ...I wish I could tell you ....but I cannot...why bother having a reporter even come???....darn curious on that one?????..JMO again....robynhood!

FWIW, they did not ask the reporter to visit. She just showed up.

Ann Brocklehurst&#8207;@AnnB0312 Sep
@MollyatTheSpec Great jailhouse intvus. Did they know you were reporter when they agreed to see you? Or did you give only your name?

molly hayes&#8207;@MollyatTheSpec12 Sep
@AnnB03 they did not know name until they came down but I did tell them immediately who I was (hence the tight lips)

https://twitter.com/MollyatTheSpec

HTH

 

[Archangel7]

If that's the case, and a potential juror really feels that way, then they have a legal and moral obligation to advise the court that they cannot remain unprejudiced and, therefore, should not serve on the jury.



http://currielaw.ca/2011/03/after-arrest-silence-is-golden/

Thankfully, LE do not qualify to serve as jurors.

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/jury/general_jury_duty_info.asp

JMO

However "reasonable doubt" is also a two edged sword AD. You can't only have it one way(DM's way). Juror's reconcile within themselves reasonable doubt whether it benefits or condemns the accused. Not something that is easily determined hypothetically and pre- juror selection.

You seem to benchmark juror opinion/attitude/bias based on your belief in their(DM/MS) innocence...I base my jury opinion on the evidence they would see so far as sitting jurors or worse, a sitting Judge well wise in the ways of law/silence/and criminals......We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are.....

Also the law considers the opposite....anything you do say without "Miranda,"
or Charter right to silence in questioning, CANNOT be used against you in Court directly in most cases. Thus another "side" to the "being prejudiced" to what is said or not said and when.

Thankfully, most civilians do not qualify to serve as jurors and never preachers, school teachers and doctors.

A very great spokesman in my country one said this.......

Take it as a given that everyone outside of playpens
and judge's chambers has a prejudiced point of view.
You can't remove prejudice, but you may be able to spot it in voir dire.

Thomas Jefferson

 

[Alethea Dice]

However "reasonable doubt" is also a two edged sword AD. You can't only have it one way(DM's way). Juror's reconcile within themselves reasonable doubt whether it benefits or condemns the accused. Not something that is easily determined hypothetically and pre- juror selection.

You seem to benchmark juror opinion/attitude/bias based on your belief in their(DM/MS) innocence...I base my jury opinion on the evidence they would see so far as sitting jurors or worse, a sitting Judge well wise in the ways of law/silence/and criminals......We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are.....

Also the law considers the opposite....anything you do say without "Miranda,"
or Charter right to silence in questioning, CANNOT be used against you in Court directly in most cases. Thus another "side" to the "being prejudiced" to what is said or not said and when.

Thankfully, most civilians do not qualify to serve as jurors and never preachers, school teachers and doctors.

A very great spokesman in my country one said this.......

Take it as a given that everyone outside of playpens
and judge's chambers has a prejudiced point of view.
You can't remove prejudice, but you may be able to spot it in voir dire.

Thomas Jefferson

Perhaps prejudice was the wrong word to use, but I really can think of no other word to fit what I meant. Of course, we all have our own biases based on our experience, etc. If called for jury selection, you will be asked something along the lines of whether there is any reason that you cannot decide the case impartially, with an open mind and without any preconceived ideas, and based solely on the evidence presented at trial and the instructions of the judge. If someone believes that a person choosing to remain silent is evidence of his guilt (as appears to be common here), then IMO they can't meet that requirement. I don't imagine that the mere fact that the accused did not give a statement before trial would be presented as "evidence" in a trial.

Here's an interesting article about Canada's "right" to remain silent.

http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=160657

Something of note in that article (although the 24 hours doesn't necessarily apply if you are taken into custody on a weekend):

Most people think talking to the police will help, but it rarely does.

First, you should know that any protestation of innocence will not be admissible in court.

A confession is admissible, but a denial is inadmissible because it is considered self-serving.

Second, it is unlikely the police will release you even if you provide an innocent explanation (unless it's an iron-clad alibi).

And, finally, although an overnight stay in police custody isn't much fun, you will be taken to court within 24 hours and your exercise of silence will not be used against you in court.

FWIW, I don't base my opinions on a belief in DM's innocence. My thoughts are only based on how much is still unknown. There is simply too much information that will be unavailable until trial for me to have reached a conclusion at this point in time.

I don't know where you get your information that preachers and school teachers don't qualify to serve as jurors, let alone that "most civilians" don't qualify either. I provided the link to what professions don't qualify in Ontario and neither preachers nor teachers are on it. If teachers don't qualify, I find it odd that it's written into their union contract that they get paid while serving on jury duty.

http://www.osstfd12.com/Default.aspx?DN=be203086-19c2-4dae-aabb-83078b3245d2

JMO

 

[Archangel7]

Sorry AD, didn't get a chance to view the link.

Any prosecuting attorney that allows a preacher(forgiveness/never too late to rehabilitate) a teacher(too liberal and sympathetic) and doctors(treat not prosecute) in a juror pool is asleep at the wheel. It's even joked about in certain circles about who to dismiss on the first cut.

There is nothing wrong with those professions, they just make very poor jurors historically and Prosecutors know that, or should.

I have even been called for jury duty, stood and announced to the judge(per procedure) that I was LE(which he knew) and asked to be excused.

He refused and said I could be impartial, so I had to hang around until the defense attorney freaked sideways and dismissed me from consideration.

Yes most civilians never become a sitting juror on a case of any kind.

On the not giving a statement being used in court.... Surely a juror is smart enough to hear evidence from both sides and reach a reasonable conclusion that if all the "innocent" testimony and evidence proclaimed years after the event(during trial), along with no bail and constant incarceration, with a defense lawyer on the payroll, wouldn't reach an AHA!! moment and think gee, why didn't you or your lawyer tell this story a year or two ago if you're such an angel?

No way DM was uninvolved. He may be found not guilty, but he'll never be found innocent. Ask O.J. and Ms Anthony.

 

[swedie]

Thanks, Swedie, but that doesn't really answer the question. You said that you believed the evidence spoke for itself "from day one before arrests were made", and that LE gave DM lots of information about that evidence when they interrogated him. I was curious about what all you thought they had for evidence that early on in the investigation that would lead you to that belief. There was no publication ban at the time. There was no body, no truck, no location for the crime. The question had nothing to do with what they may or may not have found later.

I'm sorry, but your list of possible evidence doesn't really mean a lot to me. More than half of the list consists of things that are possible in any investigation and are total unknowns in this particular case at this time (and will remain unknowns until the trial). I can't base my opinion on his guilt or level of guilt on speculations that they might possibly have some of these items or they might not.

JMO

Maybe you missed this part of my response to your last post. "Well because there is a PB I can only speculate at this time". Respectfully but are you not contradicting yourself here? You want MOO about possible evidence but then when I gave you a list you try to debunk it, bold above. :waitasec: So if this list really doesn't mean a lot to you, I do not believe anything else I could suggest would satisfy you as I based these possible points pertaining to this case. :giggle: I will say again we'll have to wait until the trial (if there is one), for you to get the evidence LE discovered which lead them to arresting the two accused. Anyone is free to speculate. If you don't believe the burner phone, description of the accused, tattoo, grainy video ect. were strong enough evidence to arrest, I could agree with you on that, and that is why I said During that initial, long interrogation conducted by LE with DM, certainly they would have given him plenty of information related to the evidence they have against him and his partner. MOO. I could agree and that is why it is MOO I feel certain there was stronger evidence then what you listed. BTW I did say in that post I believe and MOO so I HTH. That was the connection/comparison I was making by giving information about the R Williams case and how LE do gather info before a suspect is arrested, how they do withhold information and they do relay it to the accused during interrogation after the suspect is called to come in to the office or taken in for questioning.

Which leads me to also give consideration to this following point; LE called R Williams and asked him to come in so they could talk to him. With such strong evidence they already had against him (rare tire tracks), why didn't they do that with DM and MS; call them asking them to come in?! Something tells me they did have solid evidence to hunt the accused down and bring them in. Why didn't LE follow R Williams for hours and then pull him over and take him into custody? To me it says solid evidence. PB or not, the fact these cases can end up in court, LE have to protect their investigation/evidence so the accused don't have their rights violated. This is all JMO.

It will be interesting to one day (maybe) to hear the interrogations LE had with DM and MS. Wow wasn't it something like twelve hours in which DM was subjected to questioning? That's an awfully long time if LE have nothing really to bring forth. Again MOO.

 

[swedie]

Thanks, Swedie, but that doesn't really answer the question. You said that you believed the evidence spoke for itself "from day one before arrests were made", and that LE gave DM lots of information about that evidence when they interrogated him. I was curious about what all you thought they had for evidence that early on in the investigation that would lead you to that belief. There was no publication ban at the time. There was no body, no truck, no location for the crime. The question had nothing to do with what they may or may not have found later.

I'm sorry, but your list of possible evidence doesn't really mean a lot to me. More than half of the list consists of things that are possible in any investigation and are total unknowns in this particular case at this time (and will remain unknowns until the trial). I can't base my opinion on his guilt or level of guilt on speculations that they might possibly have some of these items or they might not.

JMO

I will cave just for you AD. Just throwing these examples out there for you. What if TB and SB had a security/video surveillance system attached to their house and it captured clear images of DM and MS. Or what if SB just happened to have taken a picture of them at some point while on they were on her property without them knowing. Or would it be believable if TB had recorded the conversation (maybe an image of DM) with his cell phone (unknown to the perps). What if LE discovered DM's fingerprints on TB's phone found in Brantford, then LE received a tip from someone who knew DM and they reported him having that tattoo and suggested he was a suspect, LE then managed to lift DM's fingerprints from one of his vehicles door handles or BO's Dodge Ram door handle or steering wheel and when DM was brought in and booked he provided his fingerprints and LE found the prints matched. OR DM left shoe impressions somewhere on TB's property and when brought in for questioning, he happened to be wearing the same shoes that day that he wore the night Tim was murdered. The last example is what RW did; wore the same boots to the interrogation that he wore the night he broke into JL's house, raped her, took her away and eventually murdered her. They found his boot impressions somewhere on her property.

Yes intelligence only goes so far and to certain things. I don't believe the perps got that lucky to almost carry out the perfect murder. As we have found out, sounds like they left a pretty good trail of evidence just based on the things you listed. Think about the information the MSM had on MR before his trial. It was nothing compared to this case. BTW the burner phone wasn't in an unknown name; it was listed under a bogus name which was traced back to DM. HTH and MOO.

 

[Juballee]

To say that jury selection does not allow for preachers because they may have forgiveness in their hearts would then also eliminate much of this country for jury selection if they follow the tenets of their religion. I believe many religious leaders like Jesus and Buddha made forgiveness a mainstay of their teachings, so wouldn't that then eliminate pretty much any religious people from serving on juries? If that is the case then only atheists should be allowed to be jurors.

If teachers are too liberal to be trusted to come to an unbiased conclusion in a trial, why then are we allowing them to educate and influence our most vulnerable and innocent citizens? The idea that teachers are not worthy to sit on a jury for a few weeks but can raise our children for 8 hours a day for 15 or more years is illogical and highly discriminatory, in my opinion. And personally, I find the idea that certain people are secretly mocked for their profession in regards to jury selection is an insult to the justice system and the idea of being judged by a jury of your peers. Basically this generalization of who is fit for jury duty listed above is cutting out a large section of the more educated and intelligent percentage of the population, and trying to stack juries towards a certain political leaning, which I think is not only wrong in theory, but should be stopped if it is actually used in practice.

I do not know if the jurors become privy to the knowledge of whether or not a defendant has applied for and received or not received bail, but I do know that as AD quoted "In Canadian law your silence cannot be used to prejudice you. No presumptions or negative connotations can be made against a defendant because he or she remained silent." So in my interpretation if the law, what that means is that if, as you say, jurors want to have an Aha moment and assume that the defendants are guilty because they did not proclaim their innocence at the time of their arrest (which would not be admissible anyway), those jurors should exclude themselves because would be breaking Canadian Law.

I also agree with AD that any list of possible evidence is like a list for Santa because of the publication ban. The list of possible evidence might as well include the possibility that the entire crime was filmed in high def from a hot air balloon piloted by the local news team with night vision goggles. By the way, Santa, if you're reading this, I want a unicorn for Christmas this year.

The what if's are endless, really, and since this is a thread dedicated to the what if's of why he might be an innocent dupe, perhaps we could hear a list of those instead? What if he really is just a nice guy with lots of stuff who had hoodlum friends take advantage of him? What if he has wanted to talk all this time but he has had the fear of his life put into him by a friend or even a lawyer that his only chance of freedom is to remain silent? What if the real reason most of those who consider him guilty is that they are really only judging him based of the envy that humans naturally feel towards those who are both richer and better looking than they are? Especially when it appears that they were born rich and beautiful and achieved what everyone wants through no effort on their part at all, it breeds a certain hatred in those who wish for or feel that they also deserve that kind of lifestyle, and that I feel is the real reason deep down that people seem so eager to judge DM more harshly than MS in this case. Of course all if this is my opinion only.