Related Issues and Food for Thought

[Alethea Dice]

Forceable confinement includes kidnapping, and that's what happened, with TB taken from his home under the ruse of a test drive...transported to another location, killed.

TB might have been killed so suddenly that he never knew he needed to get away from these men. I don't think the victim needs to be aware that he's being kidnapped in order to call it a kidnapping, if that's what happened.

The victim does not have to have a literal locked chamber around them IMO. Even being unaware of the situation ensnares the victim.

From the noted page

That's simply not true. They also included kidnapping "for the purposes of" that report, but kidnapping and forcible confinement are two separate charges. Also from that same link:

Kidnapping is similar to forcible confinement in that a person is held against their will, but it also involves the act of transporting the victim from one place to another.

A person can be charged with both as in this case, where all four accused were charged with both kidnapping and forcible confinement.

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Vancouver+charged+connection+kidnapping+assault+Ontario/10823514/story.html

However, DM was only charged with forcible confinement. Kavanagh was asked why the forcible confinement charge when TB went willingly for the test drive, and his reply was because he was not allowed to leave. Kidnapping is no part of this crime and is not a part of the charges.

The first-degree murder charge is based on the forcible confinement allegations, Kavanagh said. The charge, often used in planned and premeditated murders, is also used when someone is killed while they are being forcibly confined.

“He entered that vehicle of his own free will, but he was not allowed to leave, therefore forcible confinement is the proper charge,” Kavanagh said when asked about the charge.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/first-degree-murder-charge-to-be-laid-in-test-drive-death-remains-badly-burned/

 

[Alethea Dice]

Well not so fast: DM also faces a forcible confinement charge (as driver of the truck) and that upgrades the charge for any death to first degree.

MS OTOH was never charged with forcible confinement and theoretically could be downgraded to manslaughter.

If the only reason that MS was not charged with forcible confinement (as far as we know anyway) is simply because he wasn't the driver, then LE must believe that he planned and deliberately murdered TB since the charge is still first degree.

(5) Irrespective of whether a murder is planned and deliberate on the part of any person, murder is first degree murder in respect of a person when the death is caused by that person while committing or attempting to commit an offence under one of the following sections:
(a) section 76 (hijacking an aircraft);
(b) section 271 (sexual assault);
(c) section 272 (sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm);
(d) section 273 (aggravated sexual assault);
(e) section 279 (kidnapping and forcible confinement); or
(f) section 279.1 (hostage taking).

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-231.html

It seems obvious to me that both were allegedly involved in the forcible confinement, since both have been charged with first degree murder. I agree with Arnie that the original charges were placed because they did not yet know that TB was dead or who the other suspect was.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

<rsbm>

An 'onerous' task, but one that most defence lawyers perform on behalf of clients sitting in jail facing murder charges.

"Might affect a lot of things", perhaps including DM getting to hear the Crown's case set out before him, making the decision to plead Guilty, and therefore negating the need for a lengthy but costly trial.

Except that, when the charge is murder, the onus is reversed and it is the Defense who must show cause as to why the accused should be released. So in this case, it would be the Crown who could hear the Defense's case rather than the other way around.

(i) Reverse Onus
For certain specific offences, the Criminal Code provides in subsections 515(6) and 515(11) that the accused is to be detained during the proceedings. The accused may, however, be released if he or she proves that detention is not justified in the circumstances. The burden is shifted from the prosecutor to the accused, if the accused is charged with one of the following offences:

an offence listed in section 469 of the Code (including murder);(29)
an offence committed while the accused was on bail;
an offence involving organized crime;
a terrorist offence;
a offence involving threats, accusations, menace or violence for the benefit of a foreign entity or a terrorist group;
a criminal act committed by an accused not ordinarily resident in Canada;
the trafficking, import, export and manufacture of drugs.(30)
If the accused wants to be released, he or she must prove that detention is not justified under the three grounds set out in subsection 515(10) of the Code, as listed above.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?lang=E&ls=c35&Parl=39&Ses=1&source=library_prb#ccurrent

 

[Tamarind]

Yes , and police will say the same thing

When they are questioning a "guilty" person .... that person will "quiz" the officer .... what do you know ... ? ... what evidence do you have so far .... ? ... what have you got that implicates me .... ? etc etc

I think you will find that an innocent man/woman will also quiz the officer. I know I would be asking a lot of why's and a lot of what are you talking about's and a lot of what are you saying I have done's. Those questions are not only for guilty people asking what they may have but from innocent people wondering what is going on and why. What you say is quite misleading IMO.

Whereas an "innocent" person being questioned or arrested will be genuinely bewildered ... they will not even try to pry the information from police , because the information does not exist .

An innocent may well be bewidered but I doubt that they are all dumb mutes ! Of course they would be asking for information, in fact probably moreso at first while trying to figure out what is happening. Information may exist that implicates anyone,so naturally anyone would be interested in what evidence they are claiming exists. Thats a no brainer IMO

 

[Carli]

Forceable confinement includes kidnapping, and that's what happened, with TB taken from his home under the ruse of a test drive...transported to another location, killed.

TB might have been killed so suddenly that he never knew he needed to get away from these men. I don't think the victim needs to be aware that he's being kidnapped in order to call it a kidnapping, if that's what happened.

The victim does not have to have a literal locked chamber around them IMO. Even being unaware of the situation ensnares the victim.

From the noted page

Hmm. I think I have to quibble with you on that interpretation, Snoop. To quote again from the definition... "For the purposes of this report, the term "forcible confinement" also includes the offence of "kidnapping." In other words, kidnapping is a subset of "forcible confinement" but the latter that includes transporting the victim. The charge against DM, as I understand it, does not include the kidnapping subset, only the "forcible confinement" aspect that states a person is held against their will. However, we also understand that TB willingly got in to his vehicle for the test drive. So far as we know he was not threatened to accompany the driver, not ordered at gunpoint; not bound, gagged and dragged into the vehicle.

You point is well taken that a victim might not be aware of his confinement which is why I asked, somewhat facetiously but nevertheless seriously, am I not theoretically being a victim of "forcible confinement" when I take a trip in a taxi?

Oh gosh, apologies to Alethea who expressed this concept much more succinctly that me. I should read previous posts before jumping on the keyboard.

 

[Carli]

That's simply not true. They also included kidnapping "for the purposes of" that report, but kidnapping and forcible confinement are two separate charges. Also from that same link:



A person can be charged with both as in this case, where all four accused were charged with both kidnapping and forcible confinement.

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Van...idnapping+assault+Ontario/10823514/story.html

However, DM was only charged with forcible confinement. Kavanagh was asked why the forcible confinement charge when TB went willingly for the test drive, and his reply was because he was not allowed to leave. Kidnapping is no part of this crime and is not a part of the charges.



http://www.macleans.ca/news/first-d...aid-in-test-drive-death-remains-badly-burned/

Anyone have any idea why Kavanaugh became convinced that TB was not allowed to leave? I suppose, if there is evidence that TB was murdered inside his truck, then it would be reasonable to assume he had not been allowed to leave it. Moreover, he would have necessarily been in close proximity to the other person or persons inside the vehicle who, assuming accurate identification, might reasonably be considered the murderer or murderers. If, on the other hand, TB was murdered OUTSIDE his truck, then he was either allowed to leave or effected his escape, and there could be any number of murderers located at any point between the spot where he exited the vehicle and his house. IMO. IMHO.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Anyone have any idea why Kavanaugh became convinced that TB was not allowed to leave? I suppose, if there is evidence that TB was murdered inside his truck, then it would be reasonable to assume he had not been allowed to leave it. Moreover, he would have necessarily been in close proximity to the other person or persons inside the vehicle who, assuming accurate identification, might reasonably be considered the murderer or murderers. If, on the other hand, TB was murdered OUTSIDE his truck, then he was either allowed to leave or effected his escape, and there could be any number of murderers located at any point between the spot where he exited the vehicle and his house. IMO. IMHO.

I wondered about that too, and if it was related to him being murdered inside the truck. But at that time, and from the same article, LE didn't yet know where he was killed. Although, I suppose that could mean they knew it was in the truck, but not whether it was in Ancaster or Brantford or Ayr or Waterloo or some point in between.

JMO

 

[swedie]

Anyone have any idea why Kavanaugh became convinced that TB was not allowed to leave? I suppose, if there is evidence that TB was murdered inside his truck, then it would be reasonable to assume he had not been allowed to leave it. Moreover, he would have necessarily been in close proximity to the other person or persons inside the vehicle who, assuming accurate identification, might reasonably be considered the murderer or murderers. If, on the other hand, TB was murdered OUTSIDE his truck, then he was either allowed to leave or effected his escape, and there could be any number of murderers located at any point between the spot where he exited the vehicle and his house. IMO. IMHO.

TB's cell phone was found. Was it TB who tossed his phone with some damning evidence on it hoping someone would find it and it would help investigators. Did TB record what transpired in his truck just before his phone was switched off and he was murdered? TB's phone was found on the Thursday afternoon and LE were onto DM at least by Saturday morning. MOO.

 

[Carli]

TB's cell phone was found. Was it TB who tossed his phone with some damning evidence on it hoping someone would find it and it would help investigators. Did TB record what transpired in his truck just before his phone was switched off and he was murdered? TB's phone was found on the Thursday afternoon and LE were onto DM at least by Saturday morning. MOO.

Excellent questions. Thanks.

Any thoughts about why Brantford?

 

[Carli]

I could be wrong but I don't think LE or MSM has yet provided information about where TB was allegedly killed or even, with certainty whether this death took place inside his truck. Correct me if anybody has that info (but I presume, in advance, that information will be an early focus of the defense at trial). Forgive me if I'm wrong but IMO, we've become so distracted with the hideous aspects of body disposal in the incinerator that we've strayed some distance from the simpler questions of when, where, how and why the death of TB occurred. IMO. MOO. All other questions arise from those answers. IMO, any discussion about how (or if) the body of TB may have been disposed of, however gruesome, will hold very little significance at trial, unless raised to underscore some unlikely presentation about mental competence of the two accused. IMO. IMHO. MOO. If the two accused are found guilty, that latter aspect might hold some significance during sentencing, but probably not otherwise. MOO. IMHO.

 

[Tamarind]

I wondered about that too, and if it was related to him being murdered inside the truck. But at that time, and from the same article, LE didn't yet know where he was killed. Although, I suppose that could mean they knew it was in the truck, but not whether it was in Ancaster or Brantford or Ayr or Waterloo or some point in between.

JMO

We are led to believe that DM was driving the truck and that TB was killed in the truck and that DM killed him in the truck. What I find odd is that if someone was driving a truck how could they kill someone inside the truck? Is the suggestion that DM somehow contorted himself into a fighting stance while driving with his feet? Or maybe the suggestion is that they stopped and a struggle ensued inside the truck. The trouble with that for me is that, if this was a test drive the viewer(s) would get out of the truck and look at it not check out the interior. JMO

Also, it is interesting that they didn't apparently check out the engine at the Bosma home. They allegedly drove off down the driveway with the possibility that someone may have got out at the end of the driveway to follow in the Yukon. Why would someone need a ride to the end of the driveway? We have no idea who may have driven the Yukon if it was driven, although usually the owner would drive their own car. JMO

 

[Carli]

Then, of course, just to mess up the scenario, I suppose we have no idea who may have met them along the road. MOO What was that thingy that I dimly remember, about somebody at the original meeting in the dfriveway meeting, who said they'd be hooking up or otherwise meeting elsewhere? What was that? Could I possibly have somehow 'disremembered"? Doubt it. Clues please. Anybody have a link for that? MOO. IMHO. etc.

 

[Tamarind]

Then, of course, just to mess up the scenario, I suppose we have no idea who may have met them along the road. MOO What was that thingy that I dimly remember, about somebody at the original meeting in the dfriveway meeting, who said they'd be hooking up or otherwise meeting elsewhere? What was that? Could I possibly have somehow 'disremembered"? Doubt it. Clues please. Anybody have a link for that? MOO. IMHO. etc.

My thoughts exactly. Many possibilities along the route IMO. Many possibilities re: cellphones.

I feel we are missing something and we need to go back to base. JMO

 

[Carli]

Where were his home building plans? I call bs on him wanting to build a home. Where are the plans?

Golly. Now where do you suppose these plans would be? How can you possibly know they don't exist? Maybe the concept for a dream home might exist in someone's mind. (They certainly do in mine.) Is there some reason to believe that the absence of plans filed somewhere negates a person's dreams? Sorry. Maybe I'm missing something. My dream home, by the way, is a massive estate with every possible built-in luxury loc ated on a tropical waterfront acreage in a tropical storm and earthquake free area with full medical coverage. Hopefully the absence of practical plans for my dream home will not make me a suspect in any future dastardly deed. IMO. IMHO. Just sayin' MOO.

 

[Carli]

Well, the whole dream home diversion may be interesting, but I'll be more intrigued to learn, when we eventually get to trial, where DM and MS say they were that night of the test drive between abt 9 pm and 9 am the following morning and, moreover, if there may be witnesses to confirm or dispute that information. Everything else at this point, if you ask me, is blowing hot air. MOO. IMHO.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://forensicoutreach.com/three-ways-to-detect-pre-burning-trauma-on-burned-bones/

Found this on another WS thread (Stephanie Scott murder). Posted, IF someone has interest.

 

[hopingforjustice]

Totally off topic but thought this was very cool! What a great thing to do for both parties!

http://www.pawmygosh.com/saving-castaways/

 

[matou]

When reading WM's obit, it seems as if DM just wanted to fill the space for the submission with any details such as the types of planes he flew. "what few words could make comment here...." Just filler and little to no use of pronouns in many spots. Emphasis on the charities he was involved with and the last one being one with donations going to his own home. The pilot's license having a good photo is strange. Trying to erase the image of his dad without an eyeball even though he used an image of himself without an eyeball for an on-line profile pic? He can answer a question with a story just like his dad too, based on his letters while in jail. Like father like son. JMO

 

[matou]

If there were several people in and out of the Millard home over the years, I would love to hear what they had to say about how he was at home and how DM's relationship seemed with his father at the time. Was Wayne 'present' but never 'seen' while at home?

 

[matou]

Who took care of things at the home? Did they use a house cleaning service? Who bought groceries and ran errands? If Wayne was a drunk, did he ever drive to do things that he had to do? Did he have an errand person? Dellen could not always be around to do these things for him so who did? Was it the newest lady in his life, if she existed?