Suspect #1: Dellen Millard *Charged* 1st Deg Murder 15 May 2013 #1

[Sillybilly]

<modsnip>

<modnsip>

from:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/presumption+of+innocence

Aside from the related requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence is largely symbolic. The reality is that no defendant would face trial unless somebody&#8212;the crime victim, the prosecutor, a police officer&#8212;believed that the defendant was guilty of a crime. After the government has presented enough evidence to constitute Probable Cause to believe that the defendant has committed a crime, the accused need not be treated as if he or she was innocent of a crime, and the defendant may be jailed with the approval of the court.

<bbm>

 

[broken_angel]

I was referring to the confinement aspect ... whether he was confined inside or outside the vehicle will not make any difference to the fact he was confined.

ETA: Please either quote my full quote, or indicate that it was snipped so that my initial post is not misinterpreted.

I'm curious about the confinement issue. According to SB, TB willingly got into the truck with the other two men for the test drive. DM apparently had TB's permission to drive during the test drive. At what point would LE consider TB to be confined? Let's say DM was driving, TB in the passenger side and MS behind TB. MS could have reached over the seat and strangled TB before TB ever knew it was going to happen. That is TB may not have felt threatened until the moment he was attacked so he, himself would not have considered he was confined. If that were the case, does LE consider it confinement because TB was killed? Or do they consider it confinement because DM and MS went there with intent to do harm?

 

[SnooperDuper]

Can you elaborate on why you are so convinced of his guilt when we have very little evidence at this point.

Do you think there is any need for a trial or do you feel he is guilty by way of the court of public opinion? TIA

I think DM's lawyer DP should not have come out with, my client is "remorseful", "there's a story behind this..." etc. DP is not saying, wait, you've totally got the wrong guy...DP does imply though that DM was involved in some way.

To be fair, when DP described his client as feeling "used", "taken advantage of" it did tug my heartstrings and I tried to figure out how a kid who had everything could naively fall into a situation where he's under suspicion for murder...maybe he had bad friends? Crazy friends? I do want to hear DM's story as I am sure it will be one hum-dinger.

And as far as DP's attempt to manually tweak my heartstrings, "[DM]'s got nothing to do" in prison does not do it for me.

Anyway I think DP has caused his client a lot of damage through the comments he's made to date. At the same time there have been powerful ("used", "taken advantage of") statements from his lawyer in DM's defense as well. I think the net effect has been negative though.

So nobody asked me, eh but I think DM should have looked at getting some representation that is a little less chatty.

It is also no doubt because he has such a chatty fella as his lawyer that LE has answered with so many news conferences. I think LE was particularly generous with details because DP stood up and said he was repping a good kid from a good family. LE then had to play the game and let loose enough information to counter that argument, just to assure people that they had the right guy. And MSM elaborated on that. So yeah he went to Toronto French School (DP), and he dropped out (MSM). He comes from a good family (DP), his dad's a drunk (MSM). He has no money problems (DP), his fortunes are waning (MSM). He doesn't need to steal a truck (DP), he had possession of stolen vehicles (MSM). And by that time you're thinking, oh yeah, I forgot, the 'w' is silent in lawyer, it is pronounced 'liar'.

In terms of the press, I think the three most damaging articles for DM have been the Sun with the details on the deadstock incinerator that had people chanting "Fargo"!, the Sun again with the before&after photo of the chopped chopper (so he's done this before...) and the Post with the article on the finances and demise of Millardair, which suggested DM had motive to steal, and also to kill his own father. Wow, that is a lot of dirt to have to try and brush off you.

Anyway I would put DM's public perception problem up to his lawyer's chattiness, which gave MSM many topics to explore.

moo, I forgot moo!

 

[gimme sugar]

I think DM's lawyer DP should not have come out with, my client is "remorseful", "there's a story behind this..." etc. DP is not saying, wait, you've totally got the wrong guy...DP does imply though that DM was involved in some way.

To be fair, when DP described his client as feeling "used", "taken advantage of" it did tug my heartstrings and I tried to figure out how a kid who had everything could naively fall into a situation where he's under suspicion for murder...maybe he had bad friends? Crazy friends? I do want to hear DM's story as I am sure it will be one hum-dinger.

And as far as DP's attempt to manually tweak my heartstrings, "[DM]'s got nothing to do" in prison does not do it for me.

Anyway I think DP has caused his client a lot of damage through the comments he's made to date. At the same time there have been powerful ("used", "taken advantage of") statements from his lawyer in DM's defense as well. I think the net effect has been negative though.

So nobody asked me, eh but I think DM should have looked at getting some representation that is a little less chatty.

It is also no doubt because he has such a chatty fella as his lawyer that LE has answered with so many news conferences. I think LE was particularly generous with details because DP stood up and said he was repping a good kid from a good family. LE then had to play the game and let loose enough information to counter that argument, just to assure people that they had the right guy. And MSM elaborated on that. So yeah he went to Toronto French School (DP), and he dropped out (MSM). He comes from a good family (DP), his dad's a drunk (MSM). He has no money problems (DP), his fortunes are waning (MSM). He doesn't need to steal a truck (DP), he had possession of stolen vehicles (MSM). And by that time you're thinking, oh yeah, I forgot, the 'w' is silent in lawyer, it is pronounced 'liar'.

In terms of the press, I think the three most damaging articles for DM have been the Sun with the details on the deadstock incinerator that had people chanting "Fargo"!, the Sun again with the before&after photo of the chopped chopper (so he's done this before...) and the Post with the article on the finances and demise of Millardair, which suggested DM had motive to steal, and also to kill his own father. Wow, that is a lot of dirt to have to try and brush off you.

Anyway I would put DM's public perception problem up to his lawyer's chattiness, which gave MSM many topics to explore.

GREAT post! Thank you and I totally agree! :clap:

 

[skatergirl]

Can you explain how you know that.... do we have DNA results?

"we" don't have DNA results, but I'm sure LE does!

 

[Carli]

<modsnip>

<modnsip>

from:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/presumption+of+innocence

<bbm>

Wow.

In Canada, section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: "Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal".

Quite different in process than the cited US law, imo.

 

[Kamille]

I think DM's lawyer DP should not have come out with, my client is "remorseful", "there's a story behind this..." etc. DP is not saying, wait, you've totally got the wrong guy...DP does imply though that DM was involved in some way.

To be fair, when DP described his client as feeling "used", "taken advantage of" it did tug my heartstrings and I tried to figure out how a kid who had everything could naively fall into a situation where he's under suspicion for murder...maybe he had bad friends? Crazy friends? I do want to hear DM's story as I am sure it will be one hum-dinger.

And as far as DP's attempt to manually tweak my heartstrings, "[DM]'s got nothing to do" in prison does not do it for me.

Anyway I think DP has caused his client a lot of damage through the comments he's made to date. At the same time there have been powerful ("used", "taken advantage of") statements from his lawyer in DM's defense as well. I think the net effect has been negative though.

So nobody asked me, eh but I think DM should have looked at getting some representation that is a little less chatty.

It is also no doubt because he has such a chatty fella as his lawyer that LE has answered with so many news conferences. I think LE was particularly generous with details because DP stood up and said he was repping a good kid from a good family. LE then had to play the game and let loose enough information to counter that argument, just to assure people that they had the right guy. And MSM elaborated on that. So yeah he went to Toronto French School (DP), and he dropped out (MSM). He comes from a good family (DP), his dad's a drunk (MSM). He has no money problems (DP), his fortunes are waning (MSM). He doesn't need to steal a truck (DP), he had possession of stolen vehicles (MSM). And by that time you're thinking, oh yeah, I forgot, the 'w' is silent in lawyer, it is pronounced 'liar'.

In terms of the press, I think the three most damaging articles for DM have been the Sun with the details on the deadstock incinerator that had people chanting "Fargo"!, the Sun again with the before&after photo of the chopped chopper (so he's done this before...) and the Post with the article on the finances and demise of Millardair, which suggested DM had motive to steal, and also to kill his own father. Wow, that is a lot of dirt to have to try and brush off you.

Anyway I would put DM's public perception problem up to his lawyer's chattiness, which gave MSM many topics to explore.

moo, I forgot moo!

Good post. Speaking of the chatty lawyer, didn't he indicate that there was a story to be told once the other suspects (plural...as in more than one) were apprehended? :waitasec:

 

[Sillybilly]

Wow.

In Canada, section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: "Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal".

Quite different in process than the cited US law, imo.

LOL ... no !! If everyone was to be presumed innocent, no trial would ever be commenced.

:deadhorse:

 

[skatergirl]

[/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

There's a wild speculation...they tossed him out of the truck and he died....if they had actually done so, how did his burned beyond recognition body then end up on DM's property:banghead:

 

[SnooperDuper]

thanks gimmes_sugar and kamille

Speaking of the chatty lawyer, didn't he indicate that there was a story to be told once the other suspects (plural...as in more than one) were apprehended? :waitasec:

Yes, and it would be interesting to catalogue everything that DP has said, and you know there are a few instances where he was surprised live on camera - for instance he did not know that TPS had gotten a warrant to search the farm re: WM and LB (second warrant); LE told him nothing and MSM ambushed him.

I think at this point the "wasn't there, wasn't me" defence is clearly out the window. It's going to be about how involved DM was. DP is not arguing that DM was there...he was.

MS is the most ordinary of petty criminals. His lawyer has said nothing. We know almost nothing about him. It's possible MS is a pothead. Two-thirds of Canadians are in favour of legalizing or decriminalizing pot. So are people really going to see this guy as say-10? Or can they only visualize him killing a bag of Doritos?

Certainly Google tells you that DM is the name everyone is talking about. DM's Yukon, DM's trailer, DM's farm, DM's hangar, DM's father, DM's ex, DM's trip to Baja, DM's Dodge Ram 3500, DM's mother's driveway...

I don't understand why MS just doesn't spill.

 

[Blomquist]

LOL ... no !! If everyone was to be presumed innocent, no trial would ever be commenced.

:deadhorse:

We all have to come from a position of presumed innocence to actually get a fair trial !!! If we come from the position of presumed guilt the defense is at a disadvantage from the off which means UNFAIR. The LAW states that everyone is to be presumed innocent.Choosing to accept some facets of actual Law and not others, to suit ones opinion, is not highly recommended if we are to seek justice on fair terms.. JMO MOO

:smiliescale:

 

[skatergirl]

I think DM's lawyer DP should not have come out with, my client is "remorseful", "there's a story behind this..." etc. DP is not saying, wait, you've totally got the wrong guy...DP does imply though that DM was involved in some way.

To be fair, when DP described his client as feeling "used", "taken advantage of" it did tug my heartstrings and I tried to figure out how a kid who had everything could naively fall into a situation where he's under suspicion for murder...maybe he had bad friends? Crazy friends? I do want to hear DM's story as I am sure it will be one hum-dinger.

And as far as DP's attempt to manually tweak my heartstrings, "[DM]'s got nothing to do" in prison does not do it for me.

Anyway I think DP has caused his client a lot of damage through the comments he's made to date. At the same time there have been powerful ("used", "taken advantage of") statements from his lawyer in DM's defense as well. I think the net effect has been negative though.

So nobody asked me, eh but I think DM should have looked at getting some representation that is a little less chatty.

It is also no doubt because he has such a chatty fella as his lawyer that LE has answered with so many news conferences. I think LE was particularly generous with details because DP stood up and said he was repping a good kid from a good family. LE then had to play the game and let loose enough information to counter that argument, just to assure people that they had the right guy. And MSM elaborated on that. So yeah he went to Toronto French School (DP), and he dropped out (MSM). He comes from a good family (DP), his dad's a drunk (MSM). He has no money problems (DP), his fortunes are waning (MSM). He doesn't need to steal a truck (DP), he had possession of stolen vehicles (MSM). And by that time you're thinking, oh yeah, I forgot, the 'w' is silent in lawyer, it is pronounced 'liar'.

In terms of the press, I think the three most damaging articles for DM have been the Sun with the details on the deadstock incinerator that had people chanting "Fargo"!, the Sun again with the before&after photo of the chopped chopper (so he's done this before...) and the Post with the article on the finances and demise of Millardair, which suggested DM had motive to steal, and also to kill his own father. Wow, that is a lot of dirt to have to try and brush off you.

Anyway I would put DM's public perception problem up to his lawyer's chattiness, which gave MSM many topics to explore.

moo, I forgot moo!

Kudo's to you Snooper, GREAT POST!!!

 

[skatergirl]

Good post. Speaking of the chatty lawyer, didn't he indicate that there was a story to be told once the other suspects (plural...as in more than one) were apprehended? :waitasec:

Yes, DP did make that statement, and I've been waiting to hear 'the rest of the story' :floorlaugh:ever since the arrest of MS

 

[Blomquist]

There's a wild speculation...they tossed him out of the truck and he died....if they had actually done so, how did his burned beyond recognition body then end up on DM's property:banghead:

I have read quite a bit of wild speculation about this case.... so I guess my statements are as valid as anyone elses... we are here to discuss the case... so it is safe to say that if someone has an opinion then so do the rest. I don't know how his body got burned or how it got to the farm...and I am not so sure that anyone else does at this point in time...except those (whomever they may be) who are involved.

:beamup:

 

[skatergirl]

We all have to come from a position of presumed innocence to actually get a fair trial !!! If we come from the position of presumed guilt the defense is at a disadvantage from the off which means UNFAIR. The LAW states that everyone is to be presumed innocent.Choosing to accept some facets of actual Law and not others, to suit ones opinion, is not highly recommended if we are to seek justice on fair terms.. JMO MOO

:smiliescale:

But you see, it is quite obvious no one discussing this forum is going to be part of the jury that decides this case, so our opinions here, are just that, our opinions here, that's it-that's all MOO

 

[Blomquist]

thanks gimmes_sugar and kamille



Yes, and it would be interesting to catalogue everything that DP has said, and you know there are a few instances where he was surprised live on camera - for instance he did not know that TPS had gotten a warrant to search the farm re: WM and LB (second warrant); LE told him nothing and MSM ambushed him.

I think at this point the "wasn't there, wasn't me" defence is clearly out the window. It's going to be about how involved DM was. DP is not arguing that DM was there...he was.

MS is the most ordinary of petty criminals. His lawyer has said nothing. We know almost nothing about him. It's possible MS is a pothead. Two-thirds of Canadians are in favour of legalizing or decriminalizing pot. So are people really going to see this guy as say-10? Or can they only visualize him killing a bag of Doritos?

Certainly Google tells you that DM is the name everyone is talking about. DM's Yukon, DM's trailer, DM's farm, DM's hangar, DM's father, DM's ex, DM's trip to Baja, DM's Dodge Ram 3500, DM's mother's driveway...

I don't understand why MS just doesn't spill.

Probably because the court of public opinion has been strategically stacked against him and DM by way of MSM both the press, the internet and by LE. I wouldn't talk either if I knew how the situation was being manipulated, and I felt I was innocent.

 

[Sillybilly]

Note to self: Never hire a criminal defence lawyer with the initials DP

 

[Blomquist]

But you see, it is quite obvious no one discussing this forum is going to be part of the jury that decides this case, so our opinions here, are just that, our opinions here, that's it-that's all MOO

The court of public opinion can and does affect jurors. This is why cases are moved from one jurisdiction to another so that jurors are not polluted by such. Jurors have to come from a position of presumed innocence in fact IMO it is the only way to go. It doesn't mean that there are not guilty parties, just that the guilty party needs to be proven by way of correct and fair procedure., which these days is not easy as we can see !

 

[Sillybilly]

Probably because the court of public opinion has been strategically stacked against him and DM by way of MSM both the press, the internet and by LE. I wouldn't talk either if I knew how the situation was being manipulated, and I felt I was innocent.

On the day of his arrest, the court of public opinion or any suggestion of manipulation by the media, etc did NOT factor into his failing to talk. IMO, he could have been singing like a canary and screaming his innocence from the rooftops on Day 1.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Probably because the court of public opinion has been strategically stacked against him and DM by way of MSM both the press, the internet and by LE. I wouldn't talk either if I knew how the situation was being manipulated, and I felt I was innocent.

Well innocent is a big word - it is quite a measure to try and measure up to. It has both legal and moral meanings. That's why lawyers prefer "not guilty", which is not the same thing. You cannot stand by as someone is killed and be innocent. You might be found not guilty of something or another but you could not be described as being innocent.