General Discussion and Theories #3

[ABro]

For my part the personal life of someone found guilty of triple murders with "thrill kill" motivation would be of interest. (Modsnip) MOO. IMHO.

Why don't you try and break this theory down for us, Carli.

Am I hearing that you're cool with books, movie deals, gossip, and any and all reporting so long as it's after a guilty verdict?

What about trial coverage? Should that be allowed given there's never a guarantee the accused will be found guilty?

 

[Carli]

Why don't you try and break this theory down for us, Carli.

Am I hearing that you're cool with books, movie deals, gossip, and any and all reporting so long as it's after a guilty verdict?

What about trial coverage? Should that be allowed given there's never a guarantee the accused will be found guilty?

.Yes.

 

[ABro]

So, it's just pre-trial chit chat (modsnip)

What's your proposed solution? Blanket publication ban?

Tough to see how that would help people who actually are the victims of wrongful prosecutions.

Also impossible to implement. (Modsnip)

 

[Carli]

Actually, make that "no".

I'm very interested in immediate reportage of malpractice, malfeasance, malicious prosecution etc. on the part of the justice system including LE, in the maltreatment of prisoners and in the abuse of human rights of those accused of crimes (including the murders or beatings of arrestees.)

I would be in favour of full trial coverage transparency were it not for Canada's tiresome penchant for American style news reportage governed by ratings that frequently turn the trial du jour into political street theatre. MOO. IMO.

But am I comfortable digging around in the childhood of persons accused of a crime in a desperate attempt to find something, anything, to suggest he's not like me and he's not like you? No, I'm not. IMO. JMO. Most importantly, public opinion fueled by gossip, threatens the possibility of a fair trial, imo. imho.

 

[ABro]

Meh. Lots of people aren't the slightest bit interested in this case. Or ISIS or Ferguson for that matter.

I talk to people all the time who haven't heard of Tim Bosma. I'm confident all involved will have a fair trial while websleuthers keep right on web sleuthing.

It's not like these issues don't date back centuries either. Shakespeare (notorious proponent of mob justice that he was) has long been accused of maligning Richard III. There's a very good mystery written all about it, The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey. Entertaining too.

(Modsnip)

 

[Woodland]

You bring up a good point ABro over your last few posts - I'm impressed.

To think that posting on WS will sway the jury pool in Hamilton, Ontario is well, a stretch at best. Egotistical at worst.

Fwiw - I started out with an open mind with the arrests, knowing innocent people have been charged and convicted. Unfortunately, 1/3 or so of the posts on these threads have changed my mind - imo, 25 to life is coming for DM and MS. CN - no guess on my part as I don't know her role as yet.

Seems it can work both ways.

 

[SnooperDuper]

I don't really see the relevance of who DM dated from the age of 20 until the current situation either, but that's just me.

JMO

Someone who knew DM at 20 would be able to attest to who his friends were at the time. So if I wanted to prove a long-time association between DM and someone, I might look at/around the person he was dating at the time. moo

 

[Carli]

Meh. Lots of people aren't the slightest bit interested in this case. Or ISIS or Ferguson for that matter.

I talk to people all the time who haven't heard of Tim Bosma. I'm confident all involved will have a fair trial while websleuthers keep right on web sleuthing.

It's not like these issues don't date back centuries either. Shakespeare (notorious proponent of mob justice that he was) has long been accused of maligning Richard III. There's a very good mystery written all about it, The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey. Entertaining too.

(Modsnip)

Quite right, ABro. There is a very limited public attention span for murders once initial details have slid out of the news cycle, IMO. Even foreign government engineered mass murders become yesterday's forgotten news in short order. But, as I understand it, in Ontario at least, this particular incident caught the attention of the public and arguably made them fearful because they instantly identified with the victim. imo. After all, who hasn't bought or sold a car at some point or, at least, eventually means to do so. Couple that anxiety with such a wholesome and attractive traumatized family and the story is definitely locked down for a good run, imo. Will any of that affect the coming trial? I can't really hazard a guess about that beyond saying that there already seems to be a rather unusual amount of politics around the public presentation of this case. Now THAT I find interesting. IMO. MOO.

Thanks for the introduction to Elizabeth Mackintosh. I'd never heard of her before. What an amazingly intriguing person! Just ordered the book. Dick Three has long been one of fav evil doers so this sounds like the summer read I've been seeking. It should be said that even if Shakespeare was fibbing, he certainly did it with a certain linguistic flair. IMO. LOL.

 

[Woodland]

Couple that anxiety with such a wholesome and attractive traumatized family and the story is definitely locked down for a good run, imo. Will any of that affect the coming trial? I can't really hazard a guess about that beyond saying that there already seems to be a rather unusual amount of politics around the public presentation of this case.

Are you implying that if the shoe were on the other foot - ie MS or DM ended up incinerated after taking someone on a test drive for a vehicle they advertised on Kijiji, that public sentiment would have been different? Does the MS or DM family not seem as wholesome or attractive in your opinion?
Gotta think the MS and DM family would have been as traumatized as CB - and the public - just my opinion though.

 

[Juballee]

Why don't you try and break this theory down for us, Carli.

Am I hearing that you're cool with books, movie deals, gossip, and any and all reporting so long as it's after a guilty verdict?

What about trial coverage? Should that be allowed given there's never a guarantee the accused will be found guilty?

This is not specifically addressed to Abro, this is just to generally address the topic being discussed in this quote.

To me there are a few issues with the media digging deeply into every aspect of the personal life of an accused. Firstly, they are not the police, nor are they a court of law, so when they talk to people from the defendant's past, there are no repercussions for those who lie or embellish for attention, there is no legal accountability whatsoever.

Secondly, what if by some chance LE were wrong and that defendant really is innocent, should their name and the names and images of all who have ever known them be tarnished from the ridicule of being repeatedly publicly displayed as being associated with a criminal?

Guilt by association would be a third compelling reason, if the defendant is eventually found guilty.

Or how about the fact that all the people who know or care about any of the people in any tragic event may possibly deserve to be treated with dignity and given the privacy to mourn and absorb the event in their own way without all their old laundry being aired for all to gawk at?

Oh, yes, then there is the old standard reason, fully acknowledged by the scientific community, showing that the media can easily and nearly completely bias the public, which is why we have publication bans here.

Oh, and one more silly reason why we should be patient and wait until a defendant is found guilty before the media should make public every aspect of a defendant's life: when an accused criminal writes their story and tries to profit off of it, those profits generally go to reparation to the victim's families, whereas all the media stories and unauthorized books only profit the media, with no compensation going to the victim's families.

All of this is my opinion only, and has nothing to do with Millard Properties or Locations.

 

[andreww]

@Juballee

That is why I am so opposed to the now common publication bans used in Canada. Trials are meant to be transparent so as to ensure fairness to the accused. As with Karla Homolka, secrecy only breeds corruption, and the legal system is left to police itself.

Trials should be public. It is our right to know the information presented and I can't believe that Canadians don't make a stand against this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ABro]

To me there are a few issues with the media digging deeply into every aspect of the personal life of an accused. Firstly, they are not the police, nor are they a court of law, so when they talk to people from the defendant's past, there are no repercussions for those who lie or embellish for attention, there is no legal accountability whatsoever.

This is not true. There are libel, defamation and privacy laws that the media and others cannot afford to break.

Secondly, what if by some chance LE were wrong and that defendant really is innocent, should their name and the names and images of all who have ever known them be tarnished from the ridicule of being repeatedly publicly displayed as being associated with a criminal?

Guilt by association would be a third compelling reason, if the defendant is eventually found guilty.

Or how about the fact that all the people who know or care about any of the people in any tragic event may possibly deserve to be treated with dignity and given the privacy to mourn and absorb the event in their own way without all their old laundry being aired for all to gawk at?

I don't think anyone would argue that the current systems are perfect, but a transparent justice system and free media are basic pillars of democracy. And as imperfect as things are now, I don't think they'd be improved by a more secretive justice system or new curbs on freedom of speech.

You seem to be suggesting that the press should not report on the life of the accused until and unless that person is found guilty, but in practical terms there is no way to make a system like that work. Do we create a special category of people who can't be reported on -- even within the confines of current laws -- because they have been accused of a crime? That doesn't make much sense. Why should an accused have more rights, when it comes to being featured in the media, than the rest of the population?

Oh, yes, then there is the old standard reason, fully acknowledged by the scientific community, showing that the media can easily and nearly completely bias the public, which is why we have publication bans here.

Publication bans are not without controversy and are far from a panacea.

Oh, and one more silly reason why we should be patient and wait until a defendant is found guilty before the media should make public every aspect of a defendant's life: when an accused criminal writes their story and tries to profit off of it, those profits generally go to reparation to the victim's families, whereas all the media stories and unauthorized books only profit the media, with no compensation going to the victim's families.

You've touched on this before and I find your reaction interesting. I'm not sure why you single out the media for disapprobation. People make money in all sorts of ways that others might consider unsavoury. Defending criminals, marrying sleazy rich guys, working for arms manufacturers, encouraging rampant consumerism, and on and on.

Should Deepak Paradkar offer up part of his large salary to compensate the victims? If Dellen Millard is found guilty should all the friends, who looked the other way while benefiting from his largesse, donate to a victims' fund? What about the owners of Websleuths -- should they pony up? Or is it just the media that, while providing a service the public clearly wants, should forsake financial gains at the behest of those who disapprove?

 

[Juballee]

@Juballee

That is why I am so opposed to the now common publication bans used in Canada. Trials are meant to be transparent so as to ensure fairness to the accused. As with Karla Homolka, secrecy only breeds corruption, and the legal system is left to police itself.

Trials should be public. It is our right to know the information presented and I can't believe that Canadians don't make a stand against this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As far as I know, this trial is public. It is open for the public to attend in person, so it not a secret trial. And afterwards, we can find out all the details that people are dying to know. But in the meantime, if everything about the case were published, how safe would the witnesses feel? How safe would the families of the accused feel? How would SB feel if the media was still camped outside her door, waiting for her reaction to every new detail?

I realize curiosity sucks, but it doesn't trump the right to privacy of the victims families or the right to a fair trial for the accused, in my opinion.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Sorry to take things off course. I just wanted to say that the gossip industry is part of the media too. Carry on.

 

[andreww]

As far as I know, this trial is public. It is open for the public to attend in person, so it not a secret trial. And afterwards, we can find out all the details that people are dying to know. But in the meantime, if everything about the case were published, how safe would the witnesses feel? How safe would the families of the accused feel? How would SB feel if the media was still camped outside her door, waiting for her reaction to every new detail?

I realize curiosity sucks, but it doesn't trump the right to privacy of the victims families or the right to a fair trial for the accused, in my opinion.

Problem is that for these high profile trials, space for the public is extremely limited. People who do attend are neutered by the publication ban. So if there were any injustices committed, who would know? These publication bans never happened in Canada until Paul Bernardo, and I think we can all agree to a certain extent that ban was put in place to cover up Karla's sweet deal and overall police incompetence. Since then bans have become the norm at just about every high profile case.

I don't think people outside of Canada really understand how sweeping these bans can be. During the Bernardo trial American television news feeds were blocked. American newspapers were banned at the border. And its not simply a case of curiosity, its a basic right of the people to know what goes on in the courts. How can the public demand that laws be changed if they don't get to hear the details of court cases? The public needs to know how the process works or else it can be corrupted.

 

[Juballee]

Problem is that for these high profile trials, space for the public is extremely limited. People who do attend are neutered by the publication ban. So if there were any injustices committed, who would know? These publication bans never happened in Canada until Paul Bernardo, and I think we can all agree to a certain extent that ban was put in place to cover up Karla's sweet deal and overall police incompetence. Since then bans have become the norm at just about every high profile case.

I don't think people outside of Canada really understand how sweeping these bans can be. During the Bernardo trial American television news feeds were blocked. American newspapers were banned at the border. And its not simply a case of curiosity, its a basic right of the people to know what goes on in the courts. How can the public demand that laws be changed if they don't get to hear the details of court cases? The public needs to know how the process works or else it can be corrupted.

The fact remains that the public does get to attend the trials still, and that you do get all the information afterwards, when the truth has been sorted from the conjecture and rumours.

And I think that if the media had not run with the sensationalistic initial speculations regarding the possible details of the case so prominently, there would have been plenty of room in the courtroom for the local people and the families and friends of the victims and defendants, and the people who have a stake in the outcome.

Because, let's be truthful, if you've ever spent any time in court, you know that stories this tragic are heard every day. Yet people are not lining up to get in the courtroom and complaining that there isn't enough room for all the spectators who want to be there for these unpublicized trials. There is a lot of psychology behind the way the media feeds us our stories that should not be discounted in this situation, in my opinion.

 

[bessie]

Stay ON TOPIC. OFF TOPIC posts will be removed.

Thanks.

 

[matou]

Josie of Cockpit fame was Millard's long-term GF. He was still professing his love for her years later. Not sure why you assume she asked him to photograph her as a favour rather than he asked her to model for him as a favour.

EG (the younger) was another Millard (the younger) GF so again not sure why you would assume she was the motivating force behind the photo shoots. (Am I detecting a pattern here? Why does Dellen Millard never have any agency?)

And, yes, all this can be backed up.

Interesting that this EG is another girlfriend since DM was with his ex-fiancee for years. He was not a very loyal boyfriend to any of his many girlfriends, for sure. If anything, it shows how he can juggle different types of people in his life. JMO

 

[Carli]

Are you implying that if the shoe were on the other foot - ie MS or DM ended up incinerated after taking someone on a test drive for a vehicle they advertised on Kijiji, that public sentiment would have been different? Does the MS or DM family not seem as wholesome or attractive in your opinion?
Gotta think the MS and DM family would have been as traumatized as CB - and the public - just my opinion though.

No, that was not what I was implying nor was it the point of my post. However, now that you mention it, the media has directed us to lots of negative information about DM's family in particular while the victim's family has not been subject to subject to such examination. I hasten to add that I'm in agreement with that policy. However, it is quite contrary to the media approach taken with other murder or missing persons cases; the Likness family in Alberta; the Pickton murders; JonBenet Ramsay case and many, many more where victim's families have been the subject of intense scrutiny, usually with the suggestion that the victim(s), in some way, brought such a terrible fate upon themselves. IMO. IMHO. I don't know what police policy is in the US but in Canada LE are not permitted to comment on specifics of an investigation in progress so this must leave MSM pretty much to their own devices in finding verifiable hard news about the case. Naturally, this leads to tracking down friends, families and associates of both victims and alleged perpetrators for intvus and comments. In this case, TB's family very wisely accepted the offer of a go-between press liaison which has, I'm sure, been extremely helpful for them in maintaining privacy and dignity. IMO. IMHO.

 

[Sillybilly]

No, that was not what I was implying nor was it the point of my post. However, now that you mention it, the media has directed us to lots of negative information about DM's family in particular while the victim's family has not been subject to subject to such examination. I hasten to add that I'm in agreement with that policy. However, it is quite contrary to the media approach taken with other murder or missing persons cases; the Likness family in Alberta; the Pickton murders; JonBenet Ramsay case and many, many more where victim's families have been the subject of intense scrutiny, usually with the suggestion that the victim(s), in some way, brought such a terrible fate upon themselves. IMO. IMHO. I don't know what police policy is in the US but in Canada LE are not permitted to comment on specifics of an investigation in progress so this must leave MSM pretty much to their own devices in finding verifiable hard news about the case. Naturally, this leads to tracking down friends, families and associates of both victims and alleged perpetrators for intvus and comments. In this case, TB's family very wisely accepted the offer of a go-between press liaison which has, I'm sure, been extremely helpful for them in maintaining privacy and dignity. IMO. IMHO.

It seems on one hand you are saying the media has taken a different approach in this case, while on the other hand indicating that it is the approach taken by the family that is shielding them from the media.