Not sure how these are opposing views. I think it's not a question of shielding the victim's family from the media in TB's family's case. In this case the media is responding to the managed materials provided to them by LE with respect to the specifics of the murder investigation of the murder charges against DM and they are responding to constructive message management on the part of TB's family. This is a very good thing, IMO. Frustrating for we sleuthers, though. However, it also means that the media's only relatively easily information, imo, is DM's family, friends and associates which we've pored over in exhaustive detail, imo. MOO.
General Discussion and Theories #3
- Thread starter bessie
- Start date
- Status
Not sure how these are opposing views. I think it's not a question of shielding the victim's family from the media in TB's family's case. In this case the media is responding to the managed materials provided to them by LE with respect to the specifics of the murder investigation of the murder charges against DM and they are responding to constructive message management on the part of TB's family. This is a very good thing, IMO. Frustrating for we sleuthers, though. However, it also means that the media's only relatively easily information, imo, is DM's family, friends and associates which we've pored over in exhaustive detail, imo. MOO.
Thank you Matou, to me this is a perfect example of what we were discussing earlier: information that is not posted in MSM, but is said here to be true, by a member of the media, but when asked for the supporting material, if I recall correctly, we were told that it is unavailable for us. But this unverifiable information just helped you make an opinion as to the mindset of the defendant and cemented in your mind the judgement that he was a bad boyfriend to many of his girlfriends. This is a clear case of how the media biases the public and how important responsible journalism is to a fair trial, in my opinion.
ABro
Verified Expert
Whoops.
It would also be interesting if someone who has known him for a few years could kind of shed some light (if there is anything to be seen) on changes that have taken place with DM, when they came about and what the changes perhaps coincided with.. or was he always into the things we now know him to be into (ie people asking him for drugs, allowing the hangar to be used for illegal purposes, perhaps 'in with the wrong crowd', purchasing at least one illegal weapon, etc). At age 14 when he was in the news, he seemed to have a promising life ahead of him.
MsSherlock
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2013
- Messages
- 1,825
- Reaction score
- 423
In concern to civil lawsuits: RW has just settled a couple large lawsuits-
"The magazine quotes a prepared statement from the victims’ lawyer Michael Pretsell stating that the agreement states that the financial terms will remain confidential."
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...lliams_settles_lawsuits_with_two_victims.html
"The magazine quotes a prepared statement from the victims’ lawyer Michael Pretsell stating that the agreement states that the financial terms will remain confidential."
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...lliams_settles_lawsuits_with_two_victims.html
I still think people worrying about DM not getting a fair trial is much ado about nothing really.
If I'm on the jury and hear an accused male in his 20s has cheated on girlfriends, I might think he's a but lots of guys in their 20s cheat on girlfriends... not a lot of them are accused of triple murder. Does it give me an impression of him? Sure. But cheating isn't against the law. The prosecution will still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crimes he's accused of, even if my gut feeling going in would be that he's guilty.
If I'm on the jury and hear an accused male in his 20s has cheated on girlfriends, I might think he's a but lots of guys in their 20s cheat on girlfriends... not a lot of them are accused of triple murder. Does it give me an impression of him? Sure. But cheating isn't against the law. The prosecution will still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crimes he's accused of, even if my gut feeling going in would be that he's guilty.
lclabtech, if you, as a member of the jury, had already been informed by the Attorney General of the Province of Ontario that, in cases like this, the prosecution evidence is so solid that conviction is assured, would that affect your own opinion in any way?
Is a fair trial possible? Actually, if you ask me, where the AG has already ruled on the guilt of the accused, why even bother going to the expense and inconvenience of a trial? <sarcasm> IMO. IMHO.
ABro
Verified Expert
You shouldn't misquote people Carli.
In your eagerness to exonerate Dellen Millard -- who awaits a trial in accordance with the country's constitution -- please remember that justice is not served when murderers walk free and the taking of another's life goes unpunished. Perhaps you should wait to see all the evidence over and above the damning stuff the public already knows.
Your feelings are no substitute for facts and evidence.
Thank you for your advice, ABro. Let me provide the correct quote:
http://www.chch.com/millard-smitch-will-go-straight-trial/
Perhaps you can understand how easily I might have interpreted this statement to mean "In cases like this (where) the prosecution evidence is so solid that conviction is assured."
In actual fact I see that she did not say the prosecution had "solid" evidence. She only said "good" evidence. Nevertheless she seems to have concluded that this is the kind of case where one is assured that the accused will be convicted anyway.
But while we're on the subject of misinterpretation, for the umpteenth time, I have no dog whatsoever in this fight. To suggest that I have some kind of emotional interest in exonerating the accused in any murder case is absurd. First of all, it's unnecessary. The accused is innocent at this time. Do we really need to split that hair again? Like you, I am, however, interested in seeing this case (and some other cases in Canada) come to trial. In this particular instance, five will get you ten there will be "damning stuff" the public has so far never heard - I'm sure you'll agree.
Frankly, breathless reportage notwithstanding, I think we know dick-all about this case. IMO. I think there was clear motivation in this case and I think we won't find out what it was until we understand more about the computer seizures. IMO. IMHO. I think, we looking way to deep within the confines of the box on this one. The answers are not there. Ah, maybe they're sufficient to convict two or more low lives and lead to unspeakably tragic individual death or deaths, but the game afoot is much bigger than all of that, if you ask me. IMO. IMHO. Sound nuts? Probably. But advertising an old truck online simply does not lead to murder or to "one of the largest computer seizures in Ontario criminal law history." Period.
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4...ed-bosma-killer-s-girlfriend-was-incinerated/
I wonder if we might possibly gainfully have a look at some other major cases that have been on the plate in Hamilton during the past 1 to 3 years with nothing other than to consider whether any of those arrests / convictions / deportations / sudden deaths could possibly be linked to "the largest computer seizure in Ontario criminal law history." IMO. IMHO.
Who knows?
You are emphatically correct when you say "justice is not served when murderers walk free and the taking of another's life goes unpunished." It's a message and a principle I very much yearn to see embraced not only in cases like this at home but, on a much larger scale, in many troubled parts of our poor world.
IMO. MOO. IMHO. etc.
ABro
Verified Expert
In the absence of any exonerating evidence and requests for bail hearings from the accused, I would be interested in hearing what Dellen Millard's backers feel is being done wrong.
Do they even think he should be tried? Let out of jail?
Or do they just want people to stop talking about the case until the trial happens?
Would they have been happy if there had been no direct indictment? I don't recall that they were all that cool with the situation even when a preliminary hearing was scheduled.
What's the difference between that and a Defence Attorney saying "my client is innocent! We'll prove it" .... And not proving it.
Potatoe, Potatoe
Help me, iPhoneGuy. I presume yours is an earnest question, right? In which case, please consider reading the following link. Hopefully you may notice some discernible difference between the descriptions of the roles and responsibilities of a Provincial Attorney General and the role of the Defence.
http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/ag/agrole.asp
My apologies for taking your question seriously if that was not your intention. IMO. IMHO. MOO. etc.
redheadedgal
Former Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 4,659
- Reaction score
- 104
i guess the AG's statement can be brought up by defense attorney DP @ jury selection, and should he feel it would affect the view of any potential jurist, he can ask for that person to be excluded. seems much to do about nothing... jmo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voir_dire
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/V/Voirdire.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voir_dire
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/V/Voirdire.aspx
ABro
Verified Expert
No absolutely not.
Forgive me, but I had the impression --formed from the totality of the evidence (all your posts on this board) -- that you thought the wrong person was in jail, the Hamilton cops were incompetent and the justice system was a travesty. I couldn't agree more that the answers will be had at the trial where the accused will be considered innocent until proven guilty.
Alethea Dice
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2012
- Messages
- 2,477
- Reaction score
- 10
Although this may be the case if the trial were being held in the U.S., the procedure is different in Canada. As per your link, in Canada a voir dire is more a mini-trial held without the jury present to determine the admissibility of evidence or to object to a prospective witness, not in choosing the jury.
In Canada, prospective jurors are generally first asked as a group if there is any reason that they can't serve. Then, if their name is drawn, they proceed to the front and may be asked a common question, such as "are you related in any way to the accused". There is not a series of questioning done to help in the decision process. The Crown and Defense can either consent to you being on the jury or challenge you, in which case you won't be on that jury. If they consent, you're sent to the trial room to be sworn in.
http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/jury-duty.htm#f
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2008/10/14/the_inexact_art_of_jury_selection.html
redheadedgal
Former Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 4,659
- Reaction score
- 104
from your link: Sometimes lawyers can ask prospective jurors, briefly, if they are biased against the race of the defendant or affected by pre-trial publicity.
which would include the situation carli mentioned.
exactly what i stated.
And IMHO the AG's confidence is hardly a mitigating factor. As soon as they proceed with charges, they feel they have evidence to convict. Every trial, everywhere.
If the shoe was on the other foot, would a Defense's exuded confidence warrant a potential influence of bias?
It makes zero sense.
"We think the accused did it. we're confident we'll prove it"
"We think the accused is innocent. We're confident we'll prove it"
Aw heck... They're both biasing the potential jurors.... And the court of public opinion.
Imagine the precedent set... "Too confident. No jurors. Mistrial."
Me personally, I would be rooting on the least confident, just to see the humour in false-confidence being realized.
Bananas.
I really must take exception to being characterized as boneheaded. I haven't the faintest notion if the wrong people are presently incarcerated in these tragic deaths nor have I ever stated such an idea. Determining the level of competence of the Hamilton police force is also way outside of my pay scale and please show me any post where I have put forward the idea that our justice system is a travesty. Actually, in the case of Omar Khadr I do hold that view but then, even there it's not our justice system that's truly at fault, IMO. IMHO. MOO etc. However, it is interesting to see how a perception of the "totality of the evidence" can be so completely inaccurate. Hopefully, that is not the case with respect to those charged with the Bosma/Millard/Babcock deaths. IMO. MOO. IMHO. etc. Why is it so all-fired important to discredit the efforts of some posters, including myself, who are interested in examining more than one side of a story? IMO. IMHO.
ABro
Verified Expert
Resources are limited. Police can't just launch major investigations on a whim and that's something I'm ver glad of.
In the Tim Bosma case, they seem to feel, they've got what they need, as do most people who have paid close attention.
The cases I'm curious about are those of Laura Babcock and Wayne Millard. There, we know nothing about the evidence and may not for a very long time.
- Status