General Discussion and Theories #3

[Carli]

Without belabouring the point, it is essential to understand that the Attorney General of Ontario is a political appointment.

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/ag/agrole.asp

Her bio amply indicates that Mme Mellieur appears to be a lovely and highly accomplished lady. However, she is a politician who has made a statement about the strength of the prosecution's evidence and the certain outcome of a pending trial(s).

An important part of the Crown's - and thus the Attorney General's - responsibility in conducting criminal prosecutions is associated with the responsibility to represent the public interest - which includes not only the community as a whole and the victim, but also the accused. The Crown has a distinct responsibility to the court to present all the credible evidence available.The responsibility is to present the case fairly - not necessarily to convict. This is a fundamental precept of criminal law, even if it is not a particularly well-understood concept among the general public. One of the Attorney General's responsibilities in fostering public respect for the rule of law, is to assist the public in understanding the nature and limits of the prosecutorial function.
Ultimately the Attorney General is accountable to the people of the province, through the Legislature, for decisions relating to criminal prosecutions. Such accountability can only occur, of course, once the prosecution is completed or when a final decision has been made not to prosecute. The sub judicae rule bars any comment on a matter before the courts that is likely to influence the matter. The sub judicae rule strictly prohibits the Attorney General from commenting on prosecutions that are before the courts. Given the stature of the Attorney General's position, any public comment coming from the office would be seen as an attempt to influence the case.

As you see, the potential impact on the trial bears little or no relevance to "pre-trial publicity" or even to the jury selection process. It does have to do with the perception of political interference in due process and abuse of the rights of the accused and perhaps even includes contempt of court. IMO How about the judge? (Another political appointment.) Is he ready to defy the views of the AG? Are we truly ready to endorse such "trials" in this country? Frankly, I don't know how they're going to handle this situation in these particular trials. A very slippery slope, if you ask me, and one of enormous precedent setting importance for the future. IMO. IMHO. MOO.

 

[Carli]

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.

Like you I find those two cases to be the most mysterious. From my POV, and I know you vehemently disagree, there could be several viable alternative possibilities with respect to the death of TB, but evidence and motives in these "add on" murder charges are clearly being held very close to the vest.

 

[ABro]

Without belabouring the point, it is essential to understand that the Attorney General of Ontario is a political appointment.

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/ag/agrole.asp

Her bio amply indicates that Mme Mellieur appears to be a lovely and highly accomplished lady. However, she is a politician who has made a statement about the strength of the prosecution's evidence and the outcome of a trial(s).



As you see, the potential impact on the trial bears little or no relevance to "pre-trial publicity" or even to the jury selection process. It does have to do with the perception of political interference in due process and abuse of the rights of the accused. How about the judge? (Another political appointment.) Is he ready to defy the views of the AG? Are we truly ready to endorse such "trials" in this country? Frankly, I don't know how they're going to handle this situation in these particular trials. A very slippery slope, if you ask me, and one of enormous precedent setting importance for the future. IMO. IMHO. MOO.

So what are you suggesting Carli? Should the charges against Dellen Millard and Mark Smich be dropped in your opinion?

 

[Carli]

So what are you suggesting Carli? Should the charges against Dellen Millard and Mark Smich be dropped in your opinion?

I think I already just gave my opinion, ABro. "Frankly, I don't know how they're going to handle this situation in these particular trials. A very slippery slope, if you ask me, and one of enormous precedent setting importance for the future. IMO. IMHO. MOO."

Maybe there's another court level, outside the Ontario court realm of responsibility where the case could be heard? I don't know how that would play out. Would all sides convene, declare a mistrial, then carry over to the Supremes or something? Sounds radical. Has it ever happened before? Anyway, it's not a question of dropping charges, IMO, it's a question of justice being done and being seen to be done. That includes justice for both victim and accused, as we know.

http://mapleleafweb.com/features/supreme-court-canada-role-history-and-operation

 

[swedie]

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.

Snipped from your post Carli #1072 in CN's thread. HTH.
Yes, I'm sure he will and that may be interesting, but that's not the point. His guilt has already been prejudiced. The Crown has already found him guilty. He cannot have a fair trial.

But please don't knock your knickers over this. I'm not the enemy. Rational argument is not "twisting". If I have a dog in this race, it's the underdog. Always is. As I said. Personality flaws? As I also suggested, let's put this to rest. At this rate this discussion is headed for quasi-torts and sixteenth century precedents and lord knows what else. Please let me extend my sincere hope to mutually and respectfully disagree and carry on.

 

[ABro]

I think I already just gave my opinion, ABro. "Frankly, I don't know how they're going to handle this situation in these particular trials. A very slippery slope, if you ask me, and one of enormous precedent setting importance for the future. IMO. IMHO. MOO."

Maybe there's another court level, outside the Ontario court realm of responsibility where the case could be heard? I don't know how that would play out. Would all sides convene, declare a mistrial, then carry over to the Supremes or something? Sounds radical. Has it ever happened before? Anyway, it's not a question of dropping charges, IMO, it's a question of justice being done and being seen to be done. That includes justice for both victim and accused, as we know.

http://mapleleafweb.com/features/supreme-court-canada-role-history-and-operation

You gave your opinion. Now how about providing a solution based on your opinion?

My solution is the AG needs to be more careful, but there's no danger to the trial so full speed ahead.

 

[ABro]

Like you I find those two cases to be the most mysterious. From my POV, and I know you vehemently disagree, there could be several viable alternative possibilities with respect to the death of TB, but evidence and motives in these "add on" murder charges are clearly being held very close to the vest.

They're not "add on" charges. They're first degree murder charges like all first degree murder charges. I have a theory on how the evidence was gathered, but no idea if it is correct. If it is, people will be talking about this case for years to come.

 

[Carli]

You gave your opinion. Now how about providing a solution based on your opinion?

My solution is the AG needs to be more careful, but there's no danger to the trial so full speed ahead.

Just looking into this a bit further, I'm reminded of a very famous case heard decades ago before the Supreme Court of Canada - R v Drybones. He was an aboriginal Canadian found drunk off a reserve contrary to the Indian Act and he was arrested and so charged. His lawyer successfully argued that this law abrogated Drybones Charter rights.

In the current situation, I wonder if it could be argued that a public statement by an AG also contravenes "equality" directives in Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, further explained as follows: (and thus catapults the case immediately all the way to the federal court.)

Meaning and purpose of equality

According to theSupreme Court of Canada's Section 15 jurisprudence, the equality guarantees ofsection 15 are aimed at preventing the "violation of essential human dignity and freedom through the imposition of disadvantage, stereotyping, or political and social prejudices, and to promote a society in which all persons enjoy equal recognition at law as human beings or as members of Canadiansociety, equally capable and equally deserving of concern, respect and consideration." (Iacobucci J. in Law v. Canada,[1999])

To that end, the Charter recognizes fourdimensions of equality, including substantive equality.

• Equality before the law is equality in the administration of justice, where all individuals are subject to the same criminal laws in the same manner by law enforcement and the courts.

• Equality under the law is equality in the substance of the law, where the content of the law is equal and fair to everyone so that everyone experiences the same result.

• Equal benefit of the law ensures that benefits imposed by law will be proportionate.

• Equal protection of the law ensure that the protections imposed by law will be proportionate so that the human dignity of every person is equally safeguarded by the law.

Unlike formal equality, whichoverlooks personal differences, substantive equality is concerned with theimpact of the law on different groups of individuals. Substantive equalityrequires that there be an equal impact on the person affected by the law.

Anyway, I have no idea but I do feel confident that this forum will have little tolerance for pursuing the subject further. LOL. IMO, IMHO, MOO.

 

[Woodland]

The trials for these 3 murders is going to be a slippery slope? With enormous precedent setting importance for the future?

Doubt that. So far it seems HPS/TPS will present evidence they uncovered and a verdict will be rendered in due process - in a fair setting. Even DP is not arguing that in public. Does he plan to argue that soon?

 

[Carli]

They're not "add on" charges. They're first degree murder charges like all first degree murder charges. I have a theory on how the evidence was gathered, but no idea if it is correct. If it is, people will be talking about this case for years to come.

I meant "add on" in the sense that the charges were added later. Sheesh! Dying to know your theory. Do tell !!

 

[Snoofo]

Ok let's move on everybody, shall we?

 

[Carli]

The trials for these 3 murders is going to be a slippery slope? With enormous precedent setting importance for the future?

Doubt that. So far it seems HPS/TPS will present evidence they uncovered and a verdict will be rendered in due process - in a fair setting. Even DP is not arguing that in public. Does he plan to argue that soon?

I'm not sure what you read, but if it was my post, I was referencing the potential intrusion of politics into criminal trials or the appearance of such intrusion. Yes that is potentially a slippery slope, imo. Who knows about defense counsel. That one looks like a bit of a showboat but that's probably the least of the concerns in these cases. IMO. IMHO. MOO. etc.

 

[Alethea Dice]

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.

Yes, they can...... if they decide to make that their question or if they are challenging "for cause". If they challenge for cause, each of the prospective jurors will still be asked the same question(s) and counsel will either content or challenge. Here is another link with more details, including specifics regarding if pre-trial publicity is the basis for the challenge.

https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/lawyers_en.asp?selMenu=lawyers_pmf_juryselectionprocess_en.asp

[2-A] Just because a person has read, watched or listened to reports of matters relating to this case does not mean, by itself, that the person is not acceptable as a juror to try this case.

[2-B] Just because a person has an opinion about this case does not mean, by itself, that the person is not acceptable as a juror to try this case.

...

[3] What is important is whether the person is impartial. Before finding anyone who has read, watched or listened to reports of matters relating to (has an opinion about this case), (or, has a prejudice or bias against (describe as in [2-C]) acceptable as a juror, you must find that that person would approach jury duty with an open mind and decide the case on the evidence given at trial and the instructions of the trial judge.

HTH

Still very much a guessing game on very limited information IMO.

 

[ABro]

Whoa! OK, you got me there, Swedie. LOL. Anyway, I only make reference to dogs as an homage to ABro's other interests. :truce: Do you really save all my posts? Kind of flattering. Maybe a little bit spooky, IMO. IMHO. MOO.

Yes, I do recall some rather unkind remarks about the Scottie News and various mutterings about how an aspiringdog media magnate wasn't qualified to write about crime.

Funnily enough, this case has turned out to have a few dog angles. While investigating Wayne's murder, the cops asked a witness where Dellen's dog had been on the day of the death. Apparently, it was a key point. And then there were some other canine-related issues but they've slipped my mind.

In any case, Pedo the pup figured prominently in DM's life. And I will admit I'm intrigued by that choice of name. Pedo? Really? In this day and age? Doesn't it seem just a little provocative? Or is it just me?

Cherchez le chien if you want a scoop.

 

[Carli]

Yes, I do recall some rather unkind remarks about the Scottie News and various mutterings about how a dog reporter wasn't qualified to write about crime.

Funnily enough, this case has turned out to have a few dog angles. While investigating Wayne's death, the cops asked a witness where Dellen's dog had been on the day of the death. Apparently, it was a key point. And then there were a few other things, which have slipped my mind.

In any case, Pedo the pup figured prominently in DM's life. And I will admit I'm intrigued by that choice of name. Pedo? Really? In this day and age? Doesn't it seem just a little provocative? Or is it just me?

Cherchez le chien if you want a scoop.

Nothing unkind from this quarter. I love Scotties. A dear friend used to raise them in the wayback times and another close friend has two mischievous little brats in disguise as Scotties. I adore them. Someday I want to have one. It's at the very top of my bucket list.

I've been wondering, given that May 9 date, if there's a chance that the CN connection might have had something to do with her going over to his place to rescue the critters and clean up a bit. An awfully bad idea under the circumstances, but she's barely more than a kid. Would she realize that? I seem to recall a number of people questioning where the dog might be and who was looking after the fish etc. (Wasn't there a fish tank?) Anyway. Just a ramble. MOO.

Pedo. Pedro. Whatevah. I guess when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. Or, to flip your quote. Bring a scoop when you cherchez le chien. LOL. Makes no sense but je m'amuse anyway. IMO.

 

[redheadedgal]

Yes, they can...... if they decide to make that their question or if they are challenging "for cause". If they challenge for cause, each of the prospective jurors will still be asked the same question(s) and counsel will either content or challenge. Here is another link with more details, including specifics regarding if pre-trial publicity is the basis for the challenge.

https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/lawyers_en.asp?selMenu=lawyers_pmf_juryselectionprocess_en.asp

HTH

Still very much a guessing game on very limited information IMO.

yes, thanks, but i'm not the one who had concerns about impartiality... perhaps someone else will find that info helpful

 

[redheadedgal]

dellen saved/acquired the pup in mexico, right? pedo is spanish (official language of mexico) for fart... maybe the dog has a gas problem... ::shrugs::

(and since a "d" in spanish is either hard or soft, i'm not sure what the proper pronunciation of "pedo" is... aka whether it's a hard d as in dog or a soft d as in this)

 

[Juballee]

Isn't 'Pedo' the Greek or Latin root word for 'child'?

Many people consider their pets to be their fur covered children these days, don't they?

 

[JPC]

Perro is dog in Spanish. If said quickly the rolling r can sound like a d. Perhaps D and his travel mates couldn't figure that out and thought that it was the dogs name?

 

[Juballee]

... While investigating Wayne's murder, the cops asked a witness where Dellen's dog had been on the day of the death. Apparently, it was a key point....

...Cherchez le chien if you want a scoop.

Respectfully snipped by me

Wait, are you saying now that maybe (modsnip)