Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He received an email from a woman leaving a number for him to call. When he did he got a message service and just left his number. A male called back in a very abrupt tone asking what he wanted. He said..I just returned your email about my truck.
The number he called does not match the number listed on LB phone bill.
What's your take? I would have thought LE would have followed up on this..
"very little evidence" !!!??? Don't make me laugh ! I'm sorry but the evidence that even we the general public (LE must have tons more) know about is pretty overwhelming against DM about his involvement in TB's murder and horrid disposal of his body.MOO
Interesting that the email was from a "woman". Was it signed off as a woman's name, or the email address was a woman's name?
The number on the LB phone bill was over a year ago. DM was using a pay-as-you-go "burner" phone to deal with truck ad people, trying to stay anonymous, so this could tie a lot of loose ends up as to who was involved, if it was DM or MS that he was talking with on the phone.
Has there been proof that it was actually DM's phone?
You read it wrong. Confinement is when you go willingly and are then held against your will.Generally, yeah - but theft and confinement? Not so much. As I read it, the confinement charge is defeated with proof that a person willingly went with those charged, without force or duress etc being used. This was obviously the case with TB who volunteered. There's an assumption that he was murdered inside the truck, based I guess on information (from where?) that seats had been removed together with the opinion they must have been removed to destroy evidence of the murder. Obviously, IF he was murdered inside his truck, that would pretty much confirm he was confined there. Otherwise....?
Judging by the facts only thread here...it would seem that there very few actual facts to base anything on. We have seen an awful lot of speculation though.
You read it wrong. Confinement is when you go willingly and are then held against your will.
Kidnapping is when you are taken against your will.
The appropriate link has been quoted before, but here it is again. No definition of "confinement" is immediately evident. If there's anyone on the board with legal creds, maybe an interpretation could be requested? Thanks.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-141.html?texthighlight=confinement+kidnapping+confines+confined+kidnaps#s-279.
[I]Forcible confinement
(2) Every one who, without lawful authority, confines, imprisons or forcibly seizes another person is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.
Marginal note:Non-resistance
(3) In proceedings under this section, the fact that the person in relation to whom the offence is alleged to have been committed did not resist is not a defence unless the accused proves that the failure to resist was not caused by threats, duress, force or exhibition of force.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 279; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 39; 1995, c. 39, s. 147; 1997, c. 18, s. 14; 2008, c. 6, s. 30; 2009, c. 22, s. 12.[/I]
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-141.html?texthighlight=confinement+kidnapping+confines+confined+kidnaps#s-279.
[I]Forcible confinement
(2) Every one who, without lawful authority, confines, imprisons or forcibly seizes another person is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.
Forcible Confinement (279(2))
identity of accused as culprit
time and date of the incident
jurisdiction of the incident
the accused restrained the victim
the restraint was contrary to the victim's wishes
the complainant did not consent to the confinement
the accused had no lawful authority to confine the complainant
the accused intended to confine the victim
the accused used force or threat of force
the sobriety of the parties
Sources:
↑ e.g. see R v Oakley, (1977) 36 CCC (2d) 436 (ABCA)
Interpretation
OR does not mean AND.
It means OR.
LE has also addressed in their pressers why the charge is forcible confinement.
LE has also addressed in their pressers why the charge is forcible confinement.
Did they? I must have missed it... they don't usually explain why a charge is a charge....
[/I]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://www2.macleans.ca/2013/05/15/first-degree-murder-charge-to-be-laid-in-test-drive-death-remains-badly-burned/
[/I]
Thank you...but i wonder how they prove someone was actually forcibly confined??? If both 'accused' are not talking how do you suppose they can prove someone was confined? What if someone tossed him out of the truck and he died ? That would be quite the opposite of confined. All I am saying is...it is not as easy as anyone may think to make charges stick..... suggestion and fabrication are not enough IMO
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://www2.macleans.ca/2013/05/15/first-degree-murder-charge-to-be-laid-in-test-drive-death-remains-badly-burned/
Thanks Archangel7. I see time and date of the incident and jurisdiction. However, the other elements seem uncertain, do you agree? So far as we know, nobody was inebriated. TB willingly consented to accompany those charged, so far as we've been told - there appears to have been no force or threat of force involved. The victim in this case, namely the owner of the truck, apparently agreed to this test drive and everybody in the truck had "legal authority" to be there. It's fair to assume that somebody must have restrained the victim contrary to the victim's wishes in order for the alleged murder to occur, but there is, so far, no proof that either of the accused were persons who restrained and murdered the victim.
Hopefully, sticky issues like these may soon be resolved with hard evidence so that a fully substantiated case for murder may be presented against DM in court IMO (and where applicable, his alleged fellow charged, MS) together with, at the very least, additional substantiated charges of fratricide, shop chopping, theft over, property conversion and the murders of numerous missing women, IMO.
