Suspect #1: Dellen Millard *Charged* 1st Deg Murder 15 May 2013 #2

[swedie]

I don't think a jury requires anything to prove DM and MS are definitely the culprits, all they need is enough evidence to prove it was them beyond a reasonable doubt. If it can be proven that it was definitely them that took TB and his truck out for a test drive on the evening of May 6th, then considering that TB's body was found on DM's farm and his truck was found at DM's mom's house, if I was a juror, that would be enough for me to return a guilty verdict.

Sure, it's not impossible that they didn't murder him. Maybe he had a heart attack and they panicked. Maybe the truck door opened by accident and he fell out. Maybe a 3rd party forced them off the road and murdered TB. Who knows. But if that's the case, then IMO the burden of proof would then fall onto the defense to show that that is what really happened.

moo moo moo

Edit: Added the following

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty. The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution is that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent unless and until proven guilty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

Even if anyone of the scenarios you mentioned above happened Ianman, whoever left with TB in his truck would still be faced with second degree murder or manslaughter. TB died while in the presence of the person/people he took for a test drive and the fact that it was not reported to LE by those who were with him is considered second degree murder or manslaughter depending on finer details.

Say TB had a heart attack, DM and MS panicked and tried to get rid of his body by burning it. They could still found guilty of murder one, because with evidence destroyed, there would be no way to determine how TB actually died. The fact they tried to destroy evidence is proof IMHO, they were out to commit a crime and get rid of evidence.

Had they been given enough time, I feel certain TB's truck would have been chopped to bits also or just disposed of somewhere. I heard about TB's disappearance on the news the evening of May 8th, I am assuming the perps heard it also as they would want to know what LE knew at that time. As soon as the descriptions of the suspects and DM's tattoo came out plus the fact TB's cell phone was found on May 10th, the perps, especially DM had heightened anxiety and probably paranoia which kept them from going anywhere to finish destroying evidence.

I've wondered many things about this case and one thing is, if DM's Yukon and/or TB's truck were at the farmland and left tire tracks LE were able to lift them to compare with the vehicles? Did DM take his vehicle into a shop or out to the hangar and changed the tires? Were detectives able to find the old tires? You would think also with TB's truck, they had to have taken it somewhere to clean the interior and remove the seats as I suspect it would be difficult to do inside the trailer. I bet we will get an overwhelming amount of evidence once this goes to trial. It won't come as a surprise to me to find out DM will blame it all on MS and vice versa. It will be quite interesting to hear the two different versions from defense lawyers (IF they give opening statements) in court, IF they have separate trials. Something tells me they will be separate so they can throw each other under the bus. Then it will be DP against the Crown, TD against the Crown and the best, DP against TD. Wonder if wrangling between these two lawyers have started already? :floorlaugh: All JMHO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(Canadian_law)

 

[Alethea Dice]

If the prosecution's evidence goes beyond reasonable doubt, then they have fulfilled their burden of proof. At that point, "Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party."

Who needs law school when you have wikipedia

Maybe in the States. But in Canada...

9.2 Burden of Proof[1]

(Last revised February 2004)

[1] The person charged (or, NOA) does not have to present evidence or prove anything in this case, in particular, that s/he is innocent of the offence charged.

[2] From start to finish, it is the Crown who must prove the guilt of NOA beyond a reasonable doubt. You must find NOA not guilty of the (an)[2] offence unless the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he/she is guilty of it.

http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/lawyers_en.asp?selMenu=lawyers_pmf_generalprinciples_en.asp

It is well established in law that all persons are entitled to the legal presumption of innocence for all charges they are not convicted for.[1]

Therefore the Crown has the burden of proving all the elements of the offence.[2] The onus of proving guilt never switches from the Crown to the accused.[3]The “accused bears no burden to explain why his accuser made the allegations against him”[

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Evidence/Burden_of_Proof

 

[swedie]

I agree lanman .. with one exception, being that the defence is not required to provide "proof" (that responsibility falls on the shoulders of the prosecution), but the defence must be able to suggest believable alternate theories in order to create "reasonable" doubt.

Suggestions, opinions or conclusions provided by the defence, without a logical progression of thought and common sense, and something to substantiate their theory, just isn't going to cut it with a jury.

SBilly remember the MR trial when defense declined opening statement?! They believed the onus was on the Crown to prove guilt. And that they did. No smoke and mirrors, no magic acts... On top of that, DD only called one witness with many holes in her story. The evidence will speak loud and clear and for itself. No one will have to twist anything to make it stick. :moo:

 

[swedie]

Maybe in the States. But in Canada...



http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/lawyers_en.asp?selMenu=lawyers_pmf_generalprinciples_en.asp



http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Evidence/Burden_of_Proof

Thank you AD. I will carry these links over to the Court Appearance/Law thread for easier reference. :seeya:

 

[Sillybilly]

If the prosecution's evidence goes beyond reasonable doubt, then they have fulfilled their burden of proof. At that point, "Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party."

Who needs law school when you have wikipedia

Yabutt wiki is a bit wonky

The defence does not have burden of proof as such. The defendant is presumed innocent, and the defence does not have to prove such innocence, nor do they have to prove an alternate theory. They can provide plausible alternate theories, but only have to convince the jury that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt:

9.2 Burden of Proof[1]

(Last revised February 2004)

[1] The person charged (or, NOA) does not have to present evidence or prove anything in this case, in particular, that s/he is innocent of the offence charged.

[2] From start to finish, it is the Crown who must prove the guilt of NOA beyond a reasonable doubt. You must find NOA not guilty of the (an)[2] offence unless the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he/she is guilty of it.

(sorry, for some reason the above did not include [3] which is as follows)

from:
http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/lawyers_en.asp?selMenu=lawyers_pmf_generalprinciples_en.asp

Model Jury Instructions:

[3] The burden of proof rests with the Crown and never shifts. There is no burden on NOA to prove that s/he is innocent. S/he does not have to prove anything.[4]

from:
http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/la...I-Jury-Instruction-Final_en.asp#_Toc358622437

(NOA = Name of Accused)

 

[swedie]

Thanks Ianman. I based my comment on the link Swedie posted and the ones I found when googling "Kavanagh third test drive" or similar keywords. Maybe because the statement you found was made by McGreal and not Kavanagh, it did not come up in my results. Sorry Swedie, I will take a virtual :slap: for that and like I said before, thank you for compiling the list.


Not sure why, but I would feel more comfortable with accepting it if it came out of Kavanagh's mouth. MOO.

I wonder how they are certain Millard made the calls.

At least this may narrow down one aspect of what happened that night, up until a certain point.

Maybe because media spokesperson, Constable DM isn't a veteran like Staff Sergeant K. Or could it be the female male ratio?! Just kidding :floorlaugh:

 

[Sillybilly]

Wow, denied parole eight times because he still maintains he's innocent. He's either very stubborn or very patient.

Nothing much else to do in The Big House

 

[Snoofo]

Maybe because media spokesperson, Constable DM isn't a veteran like Staff Sergeant K. Or could it be the female male ratio?! Just kidding :floorlaugh:

Neither. I don't know what it is about Kavanagh, he seems very above-board and careful no to say anything unless he really means it. And I find when something more "revealing" is said, its always someone else coming out to do the talking. I almost get the sense there are things he refuses to do, like mislead the public with information intended to be a "leak" or something that's just not true but serves a purpose. He not only cleared up the "no further remains" issue but he seemed irked that that was information provided by his own department. He just doesn't appear to be interested in the media game or anything else but doing his job as lead detective. :cow:

I know you were joking but this definitely has nothing to do with gender. I feel the same way after hearing Kinsella, that I wish Kavanagh did the talking...and he is a veteran and male too. Moo.

Back to bed!:countsheep:

 

[Blomquist]

I agree its always good to have 'officials' who refuse to mislead the 'public'. So many do it that its refreshing IMO when they don't..... MOO

 

[Juballee]

1.JIMO...I think once this goes to COURT...It shall be extremely clear ......facts will show the truth as SWEDE indicated very clearly IMO....


2.****PLUS I think SB who was the last person to see her husband alive ...will identify " how evil looked her in the face with a smile"...she knows who took Tim Bosma for that test drive....NOW I know the next post will say something like....JUST because the 2 were identified DOES not mean they did the evil deed of MURDER....

3. IMO those finger prints....and much more will show the TRUTH!

4.HMMMMMMMMMMMM ...Le do say Mr. Bosma body was burnt than put thru an incinerator...IMO ya it just happened to belong to DM on His farm too...
5. I realize everyone here is intitled to Their opinions....above is JMIO>>>>


6. Remember that incinerator is PURCHASED BY MILLAR CO...IS THIS JUST ANOTHER CONSEQUENCE( sorry caps locked )....imo DOUBTFUL WHEN YOU STACK ALL THE CARDS...IMO again>>>SWEDE YOU DID A GOOD JOB...imo OF LISTING IT...THanks ROBYNHOOD....

7.imo...THE COURT WILL SHOW ALL THE LINKS AS i believe they dotted it ...we shall all see it in the full court appearance....I will tweet it again HERE too.!...robynhood...all of this is JIMO ..not stating it yet as fact of course....robynhood.

It is still my opinion that just being the last person to see someone alive does not necessarily make someone a murderer. If anyone else here has ever gone through the process of trying to identify someone you saw only briefly in an official police indenitfication process, you can verify that it is jot like a line up on a police show. You are shown a small stack a photos that you may look at one time and one time only. You may only look at one at a time, you may not go back and compare one picture to another or look at them side by side. It is very, very difficult to do. Although I imagine seeing someone's picture plastered all over ever newspaper and in every channel might make it easier to identify later.

Finger prints could also be on TB's truck and that would not necessarily mean that that person had killed TB, only that they had driven it in a test drive. We don't know who purchased the incinerator, where it was stored or if it was used to dispose of Tb's remains.

 

[Juballee]

<rsbm>

Framing involves details such as who/what/why/when/where. Framing involves setting someone up without their knowledge. IF DM was framed, he didn't know about it at the time of Tim's murder, seemed blissfully unaware of it as he went about his life after Tim's murder, or at the time of his arrest ... goes to jail, and VOILA !!! Sitting in jail with no contact with the outside world, DM has his first visit from his lawyer, and now has all the knowledge and information related to such a framing conspiracy ... all so his lawyer is able to say "the truth will come out".

IF DM didn't know "the truth" about such framing prior to his arrest , how did he suddenly become aware of this massive framing/conspiracy truth while sitting in jail after his arrest?

I would guess DM might have became aware that he was being framed only after he was arrested, and it is possible that he only knows that he IS being framed, but not by WHO. It is highly possible that he only knows that he is being framed because he knows only that he did not do it, and must therefore assume it was someone else, that makes logical sense to me. I imagine he could be sitting in jail wondering and brain storming about who it could have been who killed TB as well. Which could certainly account for his silence. You can't say what you don't know.

 

[swedie]

I would guess DM might have became aware that he was being framed only after he was arrested, and it is possible that he only knows that he IS being framed, but not by WHO. It is highly possible that he only knows that he is being framed because he knows only that he did not do it, and must therefore assume it was someone else, that makes logical sense to me. I imagine he could be sitting in jail wondering and brain storming about who it could have been who killed TB as well. Which could certainly account for his silence. You can't say what you don't know.

So besides OC, who would want to frame him? And WHY? If it was OC, DM would very well be in the know of who, what, why, when, where and then some. When people have enemies, they know their enemies. People don't hate you and frame you just because, they have their reasons and project that to the person or at least to someone who knows the person. I'm not buying it unless what your theory is makes total sense explaining all the facts and evidence we have this far into the case. Not once has anyone given a theory based on what I mentioned above. All we are receiving are peoples' opinions and negative responses full of just their opinions. A logical explanation would be greatly welcomed by me and probably others IMHO.

Let's look at what we know so far, say it was MS with his buddy he went on an artistic adventure with, deciding to graffiti that QEW overpass. The two of them decided to go looking for a truck, go out with TB and TB ends up in the same situation. Is that so hard to believe? No, of course not and only because it's DM being accused! DM the dude with the aviation dynasty, the dude people assume has great wealth and enough to purchase a hundred Dodge Rams if he wanted to, the dude who comes across to his lawyer as intelligent, humble and a philosopher by way of nature, and who claims his client is in shock over his arrest, the dude who would rather remain in the stinking bowels of jail for at least three years, possibly for life, rather then give up his right to remain silent, to cooperate and find the real perps. Oh and of course his lawyer cannot get into the framing aspect of it right now because he hasn't had time nor disclosure to spin that aspect or theory yet. :moo:

 

[cansleuther]

Let's look at what we know so far, say it was MS with his buddy he went on an artistic adventure with, deciding to graffiti that QEW overpass. The two of them decided to go looking for a truck, go out with TB and TB ends up in the same situation. Is that so hard to believe?

One reason why some might find the above scenario more believable is that MS's friend was arrested for assault and theft earlier this year, while DM was not known to LE at the time of his arrest. In any case, regardless of his past, MS's friend does not have any involvement in this particular case and thus is off-limits to us sleuthers.

 

[Archangel7]

Set ups and frame ups are easy to initiate, however they are hard to sustain because of the story the evidence actually tells and the way the evidence is discovered and then used by the prosecution. It would need to be LE initiated(foreknowledge and or planting of evidence or wrongly interpreting evidence), along with witnesses etc. Not everyone involved (on the prosecution side) would stand for dishonesty or for the injustice either.

DP knows(lawyers are taught this)that a frame up defense is a very poor defense, whose validity (or lack of)is easily determined by the court simply by who actually initiated the opportunity, intent, etc., etc., and what the DIRECT EVIDENCE supports in that area of opportunity, intent, motive, etc.

It only takes a few minutes(usually in a Judicial Pretrial type setting if it gets that far) to "see" the truth of the criminal act or the stench of a injustice.

Now, the above was in reference to any possible LE involvement(as some have hinted) and the resulting relative ease in seeing the injustice by the Enforcement and Judicial establishment.

Imagine the evidence(or lack of) that would be needed for a total third party(OC) to initiate, sustain, and fool a LE agency, the Crown, and a Certified Canadian Forensic Crime Lab, etc., in order just to get to this point in the investigation/Pretrial.
Just imagine and consider the compounding of mistakes by all involved in order to be that completely wrong and completely fooled by OC about DM this long?

By now, the evidence should fit with the accused and them only, their timeline, their motive, etc. If it doesn`t jive, LE, knows it will be the defense`s old standard of introducing a ``phantom unnamed killer``.(which is exactly the opinion of some.)

Once again. If DM is totally uninvolved, it should be obvious to LE by now and/or at Pretrial and he would have been set free by now or will be.

 

[toom]

Awfully weird of him to show up at people's houses on foot for a test drive if he wasn't involved in something. Just sayin'.

 

[Blomquist]

Awfully weird of him to show up at people's houses on foot for a test drive if he wasn't involved in something. Just sayin'.

That has not been proven to be true..TB lived in the country...so I doubt whoever it was arrived on foot, from Toronto (as RBEG claimed they did),... one hell of a long walk !!! jmo

 

[Juballee]

:floorlaugh:

Awfully weird of him to show up at people's houses on foot for a test drive if he wasn't involved in something. Just sayin'.

It's also weird for people to take the stairs when there is an elevator or get off of their bus a stop or two early and walk for the exercise, but people do such things without being up to something all the time.

 

[swedie]

One reason why some might find the above scenario more believable is that MS's friend was arrested for assault and theft earlier this year, while DM was not known to LE at the time of his arrest. In any case, regardless of his past, MS's friend does not have any involvement in this particular case and thus is off-limits to us sleuthers.

Thanks and I had no intention on sleuthing him and it should be apparent considering I did not use his name. :seeya: Just a refresher of what I posted: say it was MS with his buddy he went on an artistic adventure with, deciding to graffiti that QEW overpass. The two of them decided to go looking for a truck, go out with TB and TB ends up in the same situation. Is that so hard to believe? :O


Good time to start my vacation. Nothing more to go over at this time, just rehashing, no new info...I AM OUTTA HERE FOLKS!! :bananalama::Banane09::takeabow::guitar::cheers:

 

[Snoofo]

Thanks and I had no intention on sleuthing him and it should be apparent considering I did not use his name. :seeya: Just a refresher of what I posted: say it was MS with his buddy he went on an artistic adventure with, deciding to graffiti that QEW overpass. The two of them decided to go looking for a truck, go out with TB and TB ends up in the same situation. Is that so hard to believe? :O


Good time to start my vacation. Nothing more to go over at this time, just rehashing, no new info...I AM OUTTA HERE FOLKS!! :bananalama::Banane09::takeabow::guitar::cheers:

Enjoy, swedie! Don't be gone for too long! I will miss our overnight debates illowfight2:

Hopefully we will be privy to new developments to discuss and you will be back soon.:seeya:

 

[skatergirl]

Set ups and frame ups are easy to initiate, however they are hard to sustain because of the story the evidence actually tells and the way the evidence is discovered and then used by the prosecution. It would need to be LE initiated(foreknowledge and or planting of evidence or wrongly interpreting evidence), along with witnesses etc. Not everyone involved (on the prosecution side) would stand for dishonesty or for the injustice either.

DP knows(lawyers are taught this)that a frame up defense is a very poor defense, whose validity (or lack of)is easily determined by the court simply by who actually initiated the opportunity, intent, etc., etc., and what the DIRECT EVIDENCE supports in that area of opportunity, intent, motive, etc.

It only takes a few minutes(usually in a Judicial Pretrial type setting if it gets that far) to "see" the truth of the criminal act or the stench of a injustice.

Now, the above was in reference to any possible LE involvement(as some have hinted) and the resulting relative ease in seeing the injustice by the Enforcement and Judicial establishment.

Imagine the evidence(or lack of) that would be needed for a total third party(OC) to initiate, sustain, and fool a LE agency, the Crown, and a Certified Canadian Forensic Crime Lab, etc., in order just to get to this point in the investigation/Pretrial.
Just imagine and consider the compounding of mistakes by all involved in order to be that completely wrong and completely fooled by OC about DM this long?

By now, the evidence should fit with the accused and them only, their timeline, their motive, etc. If it doesn`t jive, LE, knows it will be the defense`s old standard of introducing a ``phantom unnamed killer``.(which is exactly the opinion of some.)

Once again. If DM is totally uninvolved, it should be obvious to LE by now and/or at Pretrial and he would have been set free by now or will be.

Glad you got verified AA! I could tell from your posts you had more knowledge than one gets from just reading the info somewhere!!