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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blomquist said:
I do not believe jurors should be told what reasonable means... If a juror feels uncomfortable about going with guilty / not guilty then they should go with how they feel and not forced by others.
Click to expand...
And this is how hung juries are made by people lacking common sense. Evidence is evidence
And hopefully LE has what they need.
 
Blomquist said:
I do not believe jurors should be told what reasonable means... If a juror feels uncomfortable about going with guilty / not guilty then they should go with how they feel and not forced by others.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. 'Reasonable' as it pertains to jury trials definitely should be explained, JMO
 
canadiangirl said:
And this is how hung juries are made by people lacking common sense. Evidence is evidence
And hopefully LE has what they need.
Click to expand...

How do you interpret that as lacking common sense?
Potential jurors are interviewed and I am quite sure if they lacked common sense they would be weeded out at the start. It's easy to spot someone who lacks the aptitude to make a proper decision based on how they feel and/or how they have interpreted the evidence. Thats what it comes down to in actual fact. Hung juries come about because not everyone agrees...which is quite acceptable and that is supposed to be how just decisions are made by jury.
 
Does any 1 have a link to D Ms and M S or their girlfriends or sisters brothers Facebook
 
For reference in regards to what Reasonable doubt actually refers to

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt"]Reasonable doubt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Specifically this "Beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems"
 
SteveP said:
I beg to differ. 'Reasonable' as it pertains to jury trials definitely should be explained, JMO
Click to expand...

They can explain all they want... but if someone does not want to say guilty or not guilty because they do not believe that what they have seen is enough to convince them one way or the other that is their right.
 
gimme sugar said:
Both in America and in Canada, once the accused asks for a lawyer, all questioning is stopped, unless a lawyer allows questioning, but can advise his client stays silent. They can drill him all they want, with his lawyer present (if the lawyer and accused allows), or if the lawyer has not returned contact yet. Depending on what time they arrested DM, it could have taken time to get representation and they can drill him, until his lawyer is appointed.
Click to expand...

Canadian suspects of serious crimes do not have a constitutional right to have a lawyer present during questioning by authorities, the Supreme Court of Canada said today.

In three decisions released Friday, a sharply divided court ruled on a suspect's right to have counsel, specifically whether the Charter's right to counsel extends beyond being able to call and talk to a lawyer after being arrested.

In the central case, the court ruled 5-4 that Canadians have no right to have a lawyer sit in during an interrogation.
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/no-right-to-lawyer-during-questioning-scc-rules-1.561357#ixzz2VruFtAAL
 
Blomquist said:
Reasonable is subject to interpretation by each juror. If a juror wishes to acquit then I don't believe they should be forced to go along with the others, which is what sometimes happens. It defeats the purpose of a jury.
Click to expand...

It is not open to interpretation by the jurors. The Judge will explain "reasonable doubt" in his instructions to the jury.

from the Canadian Judicial Council:
http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/la...tion-Preliminary-2011-03_en.asp#_Toc287950399
 
Blomquist said:
How do you interpret that as lacking common sense?
Potential jurors are interviewed and I am quite sure if they lacked common sense they would be weeded out at the start. It's easy to spot someone who lacks the aptitude to make a proper decision based on how they feel and/or how they have interpreted the evidence. Thats what it comes down to in actual fact. Hung juries come about because not everyone agrees...which is quite acceptable and that is supposed to be how just decisions are made
Click to expand...


Evidence is evidence. So a juror should let it speak and not all jurors do that I've seen. They get swept away in the sob stories of troubled lives of the accused and lawyers who try to play on the emotions of jurors.
 
I put this on the general discussion thread but thought I'd put it here too:

Just sleuthing around--this is of no consequence, just interest. Not sure if anyone pointed this out before.

(I won't post links in case I'm not supposed to), but on Trip Advisor I saw a photo of the inside of Tugger's Sweet Shoppe in Augusta, WI and I thought--wow, looks like the background in the photo of DM released by MSM where he was holding a straw and sporting a red-tipped mohawk haircut. I blew up the DM photo and saw a billboard for UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship) in the background behind DM and googled the event. Sure enough, the UFC made its debut there Aug 2011. One of the fighters Dan Hardy sported a red-tipped mohawk at that event.
 
Blomquist said:
They can explain all they want... but if someone does not want to say guilty or not guilty because they do not believe that what they have seen is enough to convince them one way or the other that is their right.
Click to expand...

Actually I don't believe that's true. If you read the Canadian section of the weblink on Reasonable Doubt that Skatergirl so kindly posted for us, you will see that a juror has to have common sense and can't be frivolous in their decision of guilt or innocence.
 
sillybilly said:
Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/no-right-to-lawyer-during-questioning-scc-rules-1.561357#ixzz2VruFtAAL
Click to expand...

Thank you for this.

There are two points in the article.

1) The police cannot force a suspect to participate in an interrogation.
2) "In the same case, along with two other judgments, the court said a suspect has no right to re-consult a lawyer midway through an interrogation, except under some particular circumstances."

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/no-right-to-lawyer-during-questioning-scc-rules-1.561357#ixzz2VrwdnLUA

So, yes he can stay silent for as long as he wants. But they also can't interrogate for days and days...

Also, what are the "particular circumstances"?!?!?!
 
Claroon said:
I put this on the general discussion thread but thought I'd put it here too:

Just sleuthing around--this is of no consequence, just interest. Not sure if anyone pointed this out before.

(I won't post links in case I'm not supposed to), but on Trip Advisor I saw a photo of the inside of Tugger's Sweet Shoppe in Augusta, WI and I thought--wow, looks like the background in the photo of DM released by MSM where he was holding a straw and sporting a red-tipped mohawk haircut. I blew up the DM photo and saw a billboard for UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship) in the background behind DM and googled the event. Sure enough, the UFC made its debut there Aug 2011. One of the fighters Dan Hardy sported a red-tipped mohawk at that event.
Click to expand...
You can post a link to a Trip Advisor review. Just don't copy and paste content.
 
SnoopCat said:
Actually I don't believe that's true. If you read the Canadian section of the weblink on Reasonable Doubt that Skatergirl so kindly posted for us, you will see that a juror has to have common sense and can't be frivolous in their decision of guilt or innocence.
Click to expand...

I posted about common sense (above)...who mentioned about anyone being frivolous ?
 
Claroon said:
I put this on the general discussion thread but thought I'd put it here too:

Just sleuthing around--this is of no consequence, just interest. Not sure if anyone pointed this out before.

(I won't post links in case I'm not supposed to), but on Trip Advisor I saw a photo of the inside of Tugger's Sweet Shoppe in Augusta, WI and I thought--wow, looks like the background in the photo of DM released by MSM where he was holding a straw and sporting a red-tipped mohawk haircut. I blew up the DM photo and saw a billboard for UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship) in the background behind DM and googled the event. Sure enough, the UFC made its debut there Aug 2011. One of the fighters Dan Hardy sported a red-tipped mohawk at that event.
Click to expand...
Please post your link. Bessie says you can!

: )
 
bessie said:
You can post a link to a Trip Advisor review. Just don't copy and paste content.
Click to expand...

Have a look and see if this is an acceptable link:

I cut the page with the exact picture but it's giving the other ones you have to scroll through http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotos-g30346-w2-Augusta_Wisconsin.html#last

Newspaper photo DM http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2013/05/19/toronto-millard-remains-discovered.html

Anyone can look up the UFC fighter stuff and that particular fighter who has the mohawk. I would speculate this is who DM may have been emulating. IMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 243 more.
Total: 1,686 (members: 244, guests: 1,442)

Online statistics

Members online
244
Guests online
1,442
Total visitors
1,686
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,550
Messages
18,096,501
Members
230,877
Latest member
agirlnamedbob
Back
Top