Jailhouse Interview September 11, 2013

[Alethea Dice]

I thought that bail hearings address the seriousness of the charges and the risk of the suspect evading those charges as well as being a risk to the public .....or a certain person. I have experienced this from a victim point of view (and I hate word victim because I survived) and his lawyer never asked for bail because they knew that everyday served counts for 2 at sentencing....victim services and detectives told me that it is in the best interest for some to stay in jail in terms of their future court hearings and sentencing...

Bail hearings do address those concerns. But 2 for 1 sentencing ended in Canada in 2010, for exactly the reason you have stated and to reduce the numbers of inmates in remand custody. Now the sentencing is 1 for 1, unless circumstances justify more. Then it is limited to 1.5 for 1. There are more people in custody awaiting trials than there are serving sentences. This new law will hopefully change that and will also result in more accurate sentencing. Everyone is entitled to bail (except for more serious crimes like murder) unless the prosecution can show cause why they should not be released.

Bill C-25 caps the amount of credit that can be granted for time served in custody prior to sentencing (remand custody) at a ratio of 1 to 1. For example, if an offender who served 9 months in remand custody is sentenced to 4 years imprisonment, the net sentence will be 3 years and 3 months (4 years minus 9 months). Only where circumstances justify it can credit for time served be given at a ratio of up to 1.5 to 1, and the courts will now be required to explain these circumstances.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/nr-cp/2010/doc_32485.html

A federal sentencing law that eliminated two-for-one credit for time offenders are held in pre-sentence custody survived a constitutional challenge Wednesday.

The Truth in Sentencing Act, considered a key plank in the federal Conservatives’ law-and-order agenda, came into effect last year.

The legislation set a one-to-one credit for time spent in jail before sentencing, up to a maximum of 1 ½ days credit if circumstances justify it.

http://www.therecord.com/news-story/2574989-tories-law-abolishing-2-for-1-sentencing-credit-ruled-constitutional/

HTH

 

[Archangel7]

IMO It doesn`t work like that because the defense does not want to show their cards at this stage of the game. The defense will wait until the prosecution shows their hand (disclosure). ...and if they (defense)were to show any ace cards they may have at this stage and the case still proceeds to trial then they have revealed their hand. Even if they have lots of evidence that shows the accused to be innocent they cannot divulge it if it would mean that the prosecution will try to `twist it` or if it give the prosecution some info they can use to their advantage (regardless of whether it is particularly valuable to them.... all the prosecution is trying to do is muddy the water if they cannot put the accused at the crime scene... So the defense plays the same way... it needs to muddy the water for the prosecution.... and ultimately the jury decides which side is muddier.... JMO

For example...the prosecution may feel they have the bigger puddle.... but is that puddle muddier than what the defense has or vice versa..

A defense case needs to be built upon as solid a base as possible....there will be strong factors and weakers factors. Why show what you have...when the onus is on the prosecution to prove you guilty.

If a witness is brought in, that witness can be questioned by both defense and prosecution.... and if your fate is in the hands of a witness or two, why release that info now....

not sure I am making sense...tired... fftobed:

The "case" you refer to is the "property" of the public. As such the Crown provides disclosure and in fact the philosophical point of law is that they are legally bound and engaged to provide disclosure ANY TIME THE ACCUSED ASKS FOR IT AFTER THE CROWN LAYS THE CHARGE.(R v Stinchcombe I believe.

That case should be of particular interest to you and Carli as the accused was a sleazy attorney charged with theft, fraud, etc.

You continue to infer the onus to run tell the accused all that is known is solely on the Crown and you continue to drum about the intentions of the "state" to railroad a conviction onto a person, muddy the waters etc, etc.

Once again...educate yourself by reading the above case and the referred to case Boucher v The Queen~1954 I believe.
Anyway it was a SCC case so I'm sure you can find it.

Here I'll save you some time.....and so you don't put me in the same subset as with your former biology teacher. RJ in his statement says it best anyway........http://canlii.ca/en/ca/scc/doc/1991/1991canlii45/1991canlii45.html

It cannot be over-emphasized that the purpose of a criminal prosecution is not to obtain a conviction, it is to lay before a jury what the Crown considers to be credible evidence relevant to what is alleged to be a crime. Counsel have a duty to see that all available legal proof of the facts is presented: it should be done firmly and pressed to its legitimate strength but it must also be done fairly. The role of prosecutor excludes any notion of winning or losing; his function is a matter of public duty than which in civil life there can be none charged with greater personal responsibility. It is to be efficiently performed with an ingrained sense of the dignity, the seriousness and the justness of judicial proceedings.

I would add that the fruits of the investigation which are in the possession of counsel for the Crown are not the property of the Crown for use in securing a conviction but the property of the public to be used to ensure that justice is done. In contrast, the defence has no obligation to assist the prosecution and is entitled to assume a purely adversarial role toward the prosecution. The absence of a duty to disclose can, therefore, be justified as being consistent with this role.


So there, it is spelled out for all. The accused simply can have disclosure from the Crown anytime after charges are laid and can ask as he sees fit and can even complain to a Judge if he's not getting it fairly and timely.

 

[roseofsharon]

Well I do believe that the case was rather different.... but as in any case where a search or searches produce nothing they dont have a lot to go on do they really .....

Which brings me back to this case..... so far fruitless searches.... must be getting desperate... with the pretrial looming and all.... jmo

How do you know the searches are fruitless?

It takes time to process forensic lab results.

imo

 

[SnooperDuper]

I do think we have to be prepared for the possibility that the exhaustive search currently underway could turn up nothing. There might be a very solid lead that LB is on the farm, but the incinerator might have destroyed all evidence of that.

 

[Sillybilly]

I have to disagree with you, however, that bail hearings aren't automatic for lesser crimes.

http://www.fightthecharges.com/bail/

HTH

<snipped for brevity>

My apologies AD ... I don't know why but, for some reason, I was misinterpreting your posts to mean that he wasn’t automatically entitled to apply for bail (as is his right under the Constitution). I've reread, and given my head an appropriate slap.

:truce:

 

[swedie]

Of course he is not going to talk because he hasn't received full disclosure to fabricated a story with DP yet. JMO but I don't believe we will ever hear DM talk about the case even after a trial.

Oh and there's that unshaven bit once again. DP said it is not the norm for his client, he is usually clean shaven. SB and BO described the accused as unshaven.

"I want to talk to you&#8230;but I just can't," Millard said, putting down the phone and signalling to the guard outside the door that the visit was over.

His blondish-brown hair is cut shorter now than in many of the older photos frequently published in the media. He has a five o'clock shadow.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4075078-exclusive-jail-visits-with-bosma-s-accused-killers/

 

[JPC]

I now think that DM's reference to his love for his girlfriend of two years was his way of getting the message to CN that he stilled cared so that she didn't sing to LE. She may have been young and naive enough to think that he will walk free and by keeping silent they could have a life together.

 

[Variant]

I now think that DM's reference to his love for his girlfriend of two years was his way of getting the message to CN that he stilled cared so that she didn't sing to LE. She may have been young and naive enough to think that he will walk free and by keeping silent they could have a life together.

And yet he was already cheating in his heart with the jailhouse letter...

 

[matou]

I think he mentions his "girlfriend" in the interviews to remind her not to talk. JMO

 

[skatergirl]

And dating back to the late summer/early fall of 2013, I think it becomes apparent, the rationale behind Molly Hayes jailhouse interview with DM, she was searching for details to include in this recollection of information.

Why has it been posted that it's a, for lack of a better term, "sin" to gain profit from such a tragedy? However sad and disturbing it may be, the unfortunate circumstances surrounding Tim's murder are now widely known and due in large fact to Sharlene's response, not to mention the media, who profit from all of the above, maybe....just maybe, a sickening tragedy like this may be prevented in the future, hindsight is always 20/20.

Kudos to the few investigative journalists out there who have put their neck on the line to get to the bottom of this story.

 

[Juballee]

And dating back to the late summer/early fall of 2013, I think it becomes apparent, the rationale behind Molly Hayes jailhouse interview with DM, she was searching for details to include in this recollection of information.

Why has it been posted that it's a, for lack of a better term, "sin" to gain profit from such a tragedy? However sad and disturbing it may be, the unfortunate circumstances surrounding Tim's murder are now widely known and due in large fact to Sharlene's response, not to mention the media, who profit from all of the above, maybe....just maybe, a sickening tragedy like this may be prevented in the future, hindsight is always 20/20.

Kudos to the few investigative journalists out there who have put their neck on the line to get to the bottom of this story.

Just my personal opinion, but to address your question, I think that when we as a society not only accept, but give accolades to those who profit off of the tragedies of others, it gives the incentive for others to profit off of tragedies too. And following that logic, eventually people will run out of natural tragedies and have to start producing their own to report upon. CNN's 24 hour news cycle where they need to create fear and sensationalize on cherry picked news items in order to maintain their ratings is a good example of this incentive driven news reporting.

There are, in my opinion, some reporters who do put their necks on the line to get to the bottom of stories, but in my opinion, they are in countries where journalists are tortured and killed for reporting the truth. I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that these reporters talking to DM's friends and neighbours are putting anything on the line when reporting about this story. The jailhouses had security measures to ensure that there was no possible way DM or MS could have harmed any reporter, and I can't see a lot of risk in sitting down with a young widow or in writing an article that no one will find controversial. I think it is a kind of an slap in the face to the people who actually do put their necks on the line, like the officers who never know what is on the other side of the doors they knock on.

My opinions only.

 

[hopingforjustice]

Just my personal opinion, but to address your question, I think that when we as a society not only accept, but give accolades to those who profit off of the tragedies of others, it gives the incentive for others to profit off of tragedies too. And following that logic, eventually people will run out of natural tragedies and have to start producing their own to report upon. CNN's 24 hour news cycle where they need to create fear and sensationalize on cherry picked news items in order to maintain their ratings is a good example of this incentive driven news reporting.

There are, in my opinion, some reporters who do put their necks on the line to get to the bottom of stories, but in my opinion, they are in countries where journalists are tortured and killed for reporting the truth. I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that these reporters talking to DM's friends and neighbours are putting anything on the line when reporting about this story. The jailhouses had security measures to ensure that there was no possible way DM or MS could have harmed any reporter, and I can't see a lot of risk in sitting down with a young widow or in writing an article that no one will find controversial. I think it is a kind of an slap in the face to the people who actually do put their necks on the line, like the officers who never know what is on the other side of the doors they knock on.

My opinions only.

I will agree and disagree with you on this..some very valid points.

However, I have to ask you...where do you draw those lines.

There are some out there that fit your bill, but there are also honest ones out there simply answering the questions that us as a society are asking. (Hence why we are all on the page in the first place)

While I truly enjoyed the piece tonight and look forward to the second part tomorrow, It could be said that something like CHCH TV broadcast are taking advantage of a tragic anniversary.
While the broadcast in itself holds in hand no monetary value you have to admit that their goal was to draw an audience. And that audience is "money". Same thing only different?

JMO

 

[ABro]

I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that these reporters talking to DM's friends and neighbours are putting anything on the line when reporting about this story. The jailhouses had security measures to ensure that there was no possible way DM or MS could have harmed any reporter, and I can't see a lot of risk in sitting down with a young widow or in writing an article that no one will find controversial. I think it is a kind of an slap in the face to the people who actually do put their necks on the line, like the officers who never know what is on the other side of the doors they knock on.

It's hard to see this as a risky or dangerous assignment if you believe the right suspects are in jail. However for those who have espoused framing theories and suggested organized crime is involved, and that Millard won't talk because his mother's life may be threatened, well, it does seem like a reporter on the trail of truth would be a potential target too, doesn't it?

After all, if Millard and Smich are the wrong guys, the real murderer(s) are still out there.

 

[Juballee]

Television media broadcast reports do actually have monetary value for their advertisers. They are making money while exploiting SB's pain by holding it all up for us to see on the anniversary, otherwise there would be no commercials. I imagine that they will celebrate every anniversary so long as there is not other news that they find more engaging at the time. And whenever news gets slow, they can always go back and poke her again so we can all see her cry for the cameras one more time, it's 'infotainment'. So I would draw the line somewhere above repeatedly exploiting a widow's grief for ratings. If we were getting new information relevant to determining the facts of a case, that would be newsworthy in my opinion, but seeing the pain and anguish of a family sells, period. Maybe there is a name for those who profit off of the emotional pain of others, but when put in the guise of information, it becomes perfectly acceptable, apparently.

Perhaps if there were any reporters out there that reported this from the point of view that the accused are innocent, we would know if they are then potential targets, and then we might even know who was allegedly threatening them, if they were good reporters. But so far, every report I can recall has conformed to the widely held belief that they are guilty before they've been tried, and again there is no controversy to that that might be considered putting their necks on the line. To me there is no comparison to reporters reporting on this story and people who actually put their necks on the line for the truth, like LE.

This is still all my opinion only.