That does not matter, because the body was found dead on the farm was the reason why DM was charged with murder. They don't need to show who killed TB nore do they need to have weapon or cause. Simply the body on property, truck at moms, DM stealing truck is enough. MOO.
General Discussion and Theories
- Thread starter bessie
- Start date
New Posts
-
Japan - Miyazawa family of 4 murdered, Setagaya, Tokyo, 30 Dec 2000 #3- Latest: Charlot123
-
- Status
That does not matter, because the body was found dead on the farm was the reason why DM was charged with murder. They don't need to show who killed TB nore do they need to have weapon or cause. Simply the body on property, truck at moms, DM stealing truck is enough. MOO.
No I don't believe the reason for charging is resting on the body being at the farm. It is resting on the tattoo imo.Yes they do need to show who killed and how. It will help the prosecution if they can show a weapon and/or show proof of strangulation ,assault etc etc. You do not know at this point who stole/took/hid the truck so I fail to see how this can possibly be enough to charge. They are hinging their charges on circumstantial evidence IMO
SteveP
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2012
- Messages
- 4,587
- Reaction score
- 44,626
Circumstantial evidence, especially a mountain of it, can be every bit as valid as direct evidence, sometimes moreso, and cases are won every day that rely largely on circumstantial evidence. Truth be told, most murders don't happen with a gallery of spectators watching. JMO
hardly a mountain of it... maybe a mountain of speculation and suggestion IMO but not much else.
So far no proof of who was there, what actually happened or who took whom where or in what vehicle. No proof who put truck/trailer at MB
, no proof of much at all.... but wild speculations about it from all media.
Convicting someone on speculation is not justice IMO... I await more actual facts MOO :moo:
- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 39,326
- Reaction score
- 117,351
Yep, heavy circumstantial evidence is not good for the accused. There have certainly been convictions based on mostly circumstantial. Whether direct or circumstantial, evidence is evidence.
ETA: [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence"]Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Archangel7
Verified Law Enforcement
- Joined
- May 15, 2013
- Messages
- 1,420
- Reaction score
- 16
You do know that the tattoo doesn't have to mean anything. It may or may not be in the affidavit for murder in DM's case. It would be of no bearing.
In a point of law concerning an indictment or count, the person does not have to named or to be detailed with precision and if in fact that info is omitted, doesn't make the offense, count or charge insufficient.
So if I lay a charge and file an sworn affidavit spelling out why I am charging DM with murder, the omission or inclusion of the tattoo identifying or not is of no real judicial consequence.
If the tattoo is or isn't used isn't even a point of contention concerning the law. The fact that they have DM leaving with TB would be the point and would be by evidence excluding the tattoo or in addition to.
BBM I detest referencing Wiki but I'm in a hurry. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Procedure_and_Practice/Charges
Certain omissions not grounds for objection
583. No count in an indictment is insufficient by reason of the absence of details where, in the opinion of the court, the count otherwise fulfils the requirements of section 581 and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, no count in an indictment is insufficient by reason only that
(a) it does not name the person injured or intended or attempted to be injured;
(b) it does not name the person who owns or has a special property or interest in property mentioned in the count;
(c) it charges an intent to defraud without naming or describing the person whom it was intended to defraud;
(d) it does not set out any writing that is the subject of the charge;
(e) it does not set out the words used where words that are alleged to have been used are the subject of the charge;
(f) it does not specify the means by which the alleged offence was committed;
(g) it does not name or describe with precision any person, place or thing; or
(h) it does not, where the consent of a person, official or authority is required before proceedings may be instituted for an offence, state that the consent has been obtained.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 512.
Has the body been positively identified as that of TB? I understood that the remains were unidentifiable and that positive identification was yet to be confirmed. Were these remains in the form of a charred human body or just ashes? If only ashes were found is LE awaiting confirmation that these ashes are positively those of TB or are they awaiting confirmation that these are human remains? I recall that LE originally stated - will have to find the link - that there seemed to be more ashes than would be produced by one human body which is, I think, part of the reason for a rekindling of interest in LB's alleged disappearance. If there are, indeed, too many ashes, then does this mean more people have been cremated on the farm? Can they carbon date ashes to determine when such cremations took place? Is there presently proof beyond the "totality of the evidence" that these ashes include, at the very least, the remains of TB and not those associated with this property's years of operation as a hog farm? If the remains ARE human but are not those of TB, then whose are they, how did they get there, and where is TB?
Yes I do know that that the tattoo may not mean anything, it may be that the tattoo that test drive guy #1 saw is different from DM's. It may be that there are other involvements that we are not permitted to discuss surrounding the tattoo.
If the detail about the tattoo is omitted it may not dismiss the case...I am aware of that... but it would discredit the test drive #1 witness, which in turn weakens your case. Just as if test drive #1 witness were to say he was unsure of clothing worn and could not positive ID accused. It would all weaken your case. and IMO would most definitely have a judicial consequence.
Who is talking about grounds for objection...you cannot just waltz into a courtroom claiming that certain things meet certain criteria according to code and expect to win the case. You have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which IMO means you need to back up your theory with witnesses, concrete evidence/facts, and motive to say the least. JMO MOO :moo:
I think you do not understand what evidence is, the crown does not have to explain how TB's body got on the property or who put it there, they need to simply prove that DM was driving, the body was found on the property and the Ram was found at his mothers house.
Now the defendant does not get to say "You don't know how the body got on my property so therefor maybe I did not do it"....it does not work that way.
You also have to remember that DM was using a burner phone (hiding his identity) and was also found to have stolen cars in his hanger, this right there tells the jury that "I was just taking a test drive" is not going to work.
I'm sorry but I disagree with this post IMO it is incorrect. But we all have our opinions....:twocents:
Why do you disagree?
Evidence is evidence, the crown does not have to explain how evidence got there...and the defendant does not get to simply say "You can't prove that I put it there so therefor I am not guilty" It does not work that way.
I've stated my opinion so many times on this matter I think I need to just copy and paste. Lets just agree to disagree at this point.... my life is calling ;-)
Please explain again, because what I am reading is that you simply believe that the crown needs to show how and why evidence got to where it was...that is not the case.
You do not need to read into the evidence, the evidence speaks for itself.
Archangel7
Verified Law Enforcement
- Joined
- May 15, 2013
- Messages
- 1,420
- Reaction score
- 16
You were talking about the tattoo and pivoted your "case" on it, now I'm waltzing? It was posted to reveal some Canadian Law for your and other's information proving the worthlessness of the tattoo as a requirement in a count of, in this case, murder.
On the BBM.....You said a mouthful there, applies to the deafening silence of DM and his and his supporters lack of evidence too.
yes and so does the LACK of...
Pivoted my case .... :scared:
Mentioning that the tattoo is where all else stemmed from initially is hardly pivoting my case... It was the tattoo being described by some, as yet unknown witness, that caused suspicion to be planted on DM. Somehow this anonymous witness's alleged observation was enough to pinpoint DM...yet how DM came to the fore we have no clue, as we so far as I can tell, have not been advised how the tattoo suddenly became DM's tattoo. (with or without a frame). Are we to gather that witness recognized DM? They did not suggest this so exactly how his observation linked to DM I have no idea.
We have been told that body was found on farm (although this has yet to be confirmed apparently) yet the body was found AFTER DM's arrest...so it could not have been the farm that suggested the tattooed arm was DM's.
If anyone can post a link that explains how the tattooed arm was linked to DM I would appreciate it as I dont remember seeing it.
Remember we all have the RIGHT to remain silent...it is RIGHT, we need to be asking ourselves exactly why this is a right and not an opinion or word of advise. IMO
SnooperDuper
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2013
- Messages
- 7,676
- Reaction score
- 2,837
It would be pretty hard to believe that no trace (fingerprints, DNA) of DM and MS were found in or on TB's truck. This is what will tie DM and MS to the murder - not the tattoo...LE does not have to present the evidence in a chain according to when it was found either. Nor is LE limited to the evidence that has been reported or suggested in MSM - they no doubt know a lot more than they are saying. If LE reported all of their findings now, they would be at risk of causing a mistrial.
There is a LACK of detailed evidence in MSM, as legally there should be, in order to ensure DM and MS have a fair trial. Just because evidence is not reported does not mean LE has nothing on DM and MS.
There is a big difference between what we, as outsiders, would know and what LE, which holds the totality of the evidence, knows.
Archangel7
Verified Law Enforcement
- Joined
- May 15, 2013
- Messages
- 1,420
- Reaction score
- 16
Apparently the surviving owner had info that led LE to DM or tips led to probable cause to arrest DM for theft and confinement. The affidavit would spell it out clearly if we could see it. Anyway, then TB's wife likely ID DM in a police lineup or photos.
This might be as good a time as any to point to data collected by the Innocence Project.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/DNA_Exonerations_Nationwide.php
Among the findings are that there have been 307 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the US.
They note that Eyewitness Misidentification Testimony was a factor in 72 percent percent of post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in the U.S., making it the leading cause of these wrongful convictions. Also, they note that the testimony of Informants contributed to wrongful convictions in 18 percent of cases.
Additionally (in part)
Since 1989, there have been tens of thousands of cases where prime suspects were identified and pursueduntil DNA testing (prior to conviction) proved that they were wrongly accused.
In more than 25 percent of cases in a National Institute of Justice study, suspects were excluded once DNA testing was conducted during the criminal investigation (the study, conducted in 1995, included 10,060 cases where testing was performed by FBI labs).
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/DNA_Exonerations_Nationwide.php
Among the findings are that there have been 307 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the US.
They note that Eyewitness Misidentification Testimony was a factor in 72 percent percent of post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in the U.S., making it the leading cause of these wrongful convictions. Also, they note that the testimony of Informants contributed to wrongful convictions in 18 percent of cases.
Additionally (in part)
Since 1989, there have been tens of thousands of cases where prime suspects were identified and pursueduntil DNA testing (prior to conviction) proved that they were wrongly accused.
In more than 25 percent of cases in a National Institute of Justice study, suspects were excluded once DNA testing was conducted during the criminal investigation (the study, conducted in 1995, included 10,060 cases where testing was performed by FBI labs).
Let's not forget that LE also has TB's cell phone. It may have had DM's and MS's fingerprints all over it. We know that MS has a criminal record, so his prints would be on file, and since DM worked at airports, it's quite possible his were as well.
"Since 1987, all employees accessing airport-restricted areas at Canadas major airports must obtain a Transportation Security Clearance (TSC) from Transport Canada, which involves background checks by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).
In 2004, the TSC program was further enhanced to include a check of the criminal intelligence database.:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/aviationsecurity/page-192.htm
- Status