Verdict: GUILTY for both Millard and Smich of 1st degree murder #2

[NashBridges2]

I think he will win his appeal TBH. I was thinking last night, and thought back to the seemingly damning infamous sausage photo. When it was first presenting, many here thought it was by far the most incriminating thing we've seen against MS, but it was never mentioned again, likely following a legal argument won by TD. My guess is that he will state that that picture even being mentioned, along with bad character evidence that was allowed in, tainted the jury's opinion of him. Again, while I didn't expect the jury's verdict, I respect it, but this is just what I foresee happening. All my own opinion of course

Oh, you mean the sausage pics all the MS supporters have been claiming for weeks as being all innocent and no big deal? Suddenly, they're horrible and damning to his reputation and that picture and his rap song are what got him convicted? He can appeal all he wants. His lawyer did an amazing job, he received a fair trial. There are absolutely no grounds for him to appeal.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Not sure if this is the same one . . .

http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/tag/wayne-millard

"[FONT=&amp]When I visited Toronto police headquarters in February to pick up some documents, I dropped by the media office to try once again to find out if there was anything at all they could tell me about the initial handling of the Babcock and Wayne Millard investigations. Would it be possible, for example, to say whether detectives looking into Wayne’s death knew about Dellen allegedly messing with his tenant’s car? Or could police explain why Wayne’s body was released for cremation when the coroner’s office said in May that the investigation into his death was still open?"[/FONT]

Thank you [emoji4] Good to know it wasn't a dream.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[marymcd]

BBM
So if I understand you correctly, you convinced yourself it was premeditated and there was little evidence to be found in premeditation in the case of TB. I'm sorry to say but both those comments indicate there is room for doubt.

The way I read Inspector North's post was that he was stating there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to show premeditation on both DM's and MS's parts regarding murdering someone/anyone ... Not that their plans specified Tim Bosma in particular ... just that it could have been anyone. MOO

I think the Inspector meant that he arrived at the conclusion that it was premeditated, that Tim Bosma was not a specific target or in other words that murder was premeditated, but the target would be the 'source' referring to whoever they were stealing from.

 

[canadiangirl]

On what grounds?

Oh possibly the fact that MS character was brought up about a million times and DM's character wasn't even touched upon. As we found out after trial, although MS may have been a "petty drug dealer", Millard, by his friends accounts was into hard drugs and trying to get them to smuggle them for him. Just off the top of my head. That toolbox didn't contain weed.

 

[canadiangirl]

I'm loving all the explanation of the Inspector's words. I suppose we can conclude text really can be open to interpretation.

 

[NashBridges2]

Oh possibly the fact that MS character was brought up about a million times and DM's character wasn't even touched upon. As we found out after trial, although MS may have been a "petty drug dealer", Millard, by his friends accounts was into hard drugs and trying to get them to smuggle them for him. Just off the top of my head.

We heard plenty of bad character evidence on DM, like all the stuff he stole, his fancy drug box he'd pull out at parties and supply everyone with, the fact he had 3 women in the go, etc. Appeals are won due to mistakes and errors, wrong rulings, etc. No court is going to grant a murder 1 appeal because the jury heard some lame rap song the convicted wrote.

 

[canadiangirl]

We heard plenty of bad character evidence on DM, like all the stuff he stole, his fancy drug box he'd pull out at parties and supply everyone with, the fact he had 3 women in the go, etc. Appeals are won due to mistakes and errors, wrong rulings, etc. No court is going to grant a murder 1 appeal because the jury heard some lame rap song the convicted wrote.

Lame? According to many this was damning evidence. You mean the very lyrics people spent hours dissecting and linking to dates. Stating it was autobiographical? That he was rapping about actual events.

I would say that DM character evidence pales in comparison by trying to link rap lyrics to the actual murder by trying to give them meaning. Using the words "Merk", in connection to a murder trial. MM talking about MS hitting her in her testimony. BD stating he had an angry side. His past criminal record. The testimony is endless. Showing his rap video in court I'd say was one of the biggest ones.

If you don't think that character assassination cant taint a jury, you're mistaken. Justice Goodman stated himself in the charge to the jury to ignore it. But the fact is, it was allowed as evidence to begin with. Ignore it, however opinions are formed based on a person's character.

Not sure how many times I've heard the words, low life, DM druggie side kick, etc etc. I guess we'll see. TD obviously sees grounds for an appeal. I'm not a lawyer, strictly JMO

 

[NashBridges2]

I would say that pales in comparison by trying to link rap lyrics to the actual murder by trying to give them meaning. Using the words "Merk", in connection to a murder trial. MM talking about MS hitting her in her testimony. BD stating he had an angry side. His past criminal record. The testimony is endless. Showing his rap video in court I'd say was one of the biggest ones.

If you don't think that character assassination cant taint a jury, you're mistaken. Justice Goodman stated himself in the charge to the jury to ignore it. But the fact is, it was allowed as evidence to begin with. Ignore it, however opinions are formed based on a person's character.

Not sure how many times I've heard the words, low life, DM druggie side kick, etc etc. I guess we'll see. TD obviously sees grounds for an appeal. I'm not a lawyer, strictly JMO

Every single defense lawyer claims they will appeal a guilty verdict. again, none of your examples are cause for an appeal. He pushed his gf once and had a bad temper... Do you really think the jury convicted him on THAT evidence and chose to ignore the real,evidence against him

 

[canadiangirl]

Every single defense lawyer claims they will appeal a guilty verdict. again, none of your examples are cause for an appeal. He pushed his gf once and had a bad temper... Do you really think the jury convicted him on THAT evidence and chose to ignore the real,evidence against him

Is that your opinion? Because in my opinion since I see reasonable doubt I would say the fact the verdict was not reflected by the evidence IS grounds for an appeal. And likely the angle they will choose. MOO

 

[NashBridges2]

Is that your opinion? Because in my opinion since I see reasonable doubt I would say the fact the verdict was not reflected by the evidence IS grounds for an appeal. And likely the angle they will choose. MOO

My question to you though, is how do you know what evidence the jury used to make their decision? If they came out In Public one by one and stated they believed he was guilty because he helped searched for an incinerator, he took part in scoping trucks, they didn't believe his story about DM turning into a lunatic, they thought he lied about the gun, would that be enough to convince you that they actually maybe do believe he was guilty?
I get it, you are upset and disagree with the verdict because YOU weren't convinced. But the jury was. To start trying to find fault in the defense team or the way the jury ruled or how the judge handled the case is really grasping at straws.

 

[canadiangirl]

Every single defense lawyer claims they will appeal a guilty verdict. again, none of your examples are cause for an appeal. He pushed his gf once and had a bad temper... Do you really think the jury convicted him on THAT evidence and chose to ignore the real,evidence against him

And to be clear my first example is called a miscarriage of justice. And that is grounds for an appeal, although I'm not sure that is the route they will take as it's harder to prove.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

We heard plenty of bad character evidence on DM, like all the stuff he stole, his fancy drug box he'd pull out at parties and supply everyone with, the fact he had 3 women in the go, etc. Appeals are won due to mistakes and errors, wrong rulings, etc. No court is going to grant a murder 1 appeal because the jury heard some lame rap song the convicted wrote.

Yes, and the judge even warned the jury not to consider the rap music, gaming, as evidence against the accused.

Not only during his charge but frequently throughout the trial he warned jurors that the bad character evidence, the thefts, etc., shouldn't influence their deliberations regarding the charges the accused were facing.

I agree, I don't believe there are any grounds for appeal. They would only be for legal errors. Justice Goodman bent over backwards, in my opinion, to be very fair to all parties regarding what could and couldn't be a part of the jury's deliberations.

He was extremely cautious and thorough, and has considerable experience in creating a charge that took all legal factors into consideration in order to prevent a successful appeal.

He has an excellent reputation as a judge. I don't imagine he made many errors, and if he did, they would be only slight ones that would not have caused a different outcome in the jury verdict.

MOO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[canadiangirl]

My question to you though, is how do you know what evidence the jury used to make their decision? If they came out In Public one by one and stated they believed he was guilty because he helped searched for an incinerator, he took part in scoping trucks, they didn't believe his story about DM turning into a lunatic, they thought he lied about the gun, would that be enough to convince you that they actually maybe do believe he was guilty?
I get it, you are upset and disagree with the verdict because YOU weren't convinced. But the jury was. To start trying to find fault in the defense team or the way the jury ruled or how the judge handled the case is really grasping at straws.

And my response to you though is what evidence was presented of premeditation? Oh right. About 7 texts messages and a sausage pic. And you are mistaken if you think I'm upset. Answering questions that are asked of me isn't an indicator of someone being upset. Because people don't agree they expect others to conform. Well, that doesn't always happen. You are correct however that I don't agree with the verdict. I'm not trying to find fault, that's TD job.

I think people have failed to see that I'm not the only one here who sees reasonable doubt. I'm just the one under fire a lot of the time because others have stated before posting that they "will be brave" and post their true thoughts. A strong indicator that others possibly don't want to get trampled on by not following the popular opinion here. Jmo

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Is that your opinion? Because in my opinion since I see reasonable doubt I would say the fact the verdict was not reflected by the evidence IS grounds for an appeal. And likely the angle they will choose. MOO

Exactly where was the verdict not supported by the evidence?

Can you list a few?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[canadiangirl]

Exactly where was the verdict not supported by the evidence?

Can you list a few?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Mrs T, with all due respect, we've all been here for months. (some of us years). I'm sure you know my position by now. As do all the others who continuously try to politely say they think you're wrong.

 

[canadiangirl]

I agree, I don't believe there are any grounds for appeal. They would only be for legal errors. Justice Goodman bent over backwards, in my opinion, to be very fair to all parties regarding what could and couldn't be

He has an excellent reputation as a judge. I don't imagine he made many errors, and if he did, they would be only slight ones that would not have caused a different outcome in the jury verdict.

MOO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Again, out of context. I never said I didn't respect Justice Goodman. I actually believe I stated many times the admiration I had for the man based on what was reported. I was asked on what grounds I thought there would be an appeal. I answered what I think may be TD's angle. I also included I'm not a lawyer and it was JMO

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Any person convicted of murder receives an opportunity to appeal. Their lawyers will look for the the most glaring errors, and if they can't find any, they will, in their briefs, outline and present arguments detailing the smallest errors that were made, in their opinion, that legal errors were made. The Court of Appeals will only grant an appeal if the error(s) was so egregious that it would have resulted in a different verdict.

I can't see that happening in this case at all. And MOST defence attorneys will always say "We believe we have good grounds for appeal" after their client was found guilty. It doesn't mean that they do. It makes for a good sound bite, that's all. But they will proceed through the appeal process because it is their job to do their best for their client.

Even lawyers on newscasts have opined that there are no grounds for appeal.

MOO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

I'm loving all the explanation of the Inspector's words. I suppose we can conclude text really can be open to interpretation.

Are you loving them, as in believing they were helpful?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

And to be clear my first example is called a miscarriage of justice. And that is grounds for an appeal, although I'm not sure that is the route they will take as it's harder to prove.

What was your first example that you are stating is a miscarriage of justice?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Again, out of context. I never said I didn't respect Justice Goodman. I actually believe I stated many times the admiration I had for the man based on what was reported. I was asked on what grounds I thought there would be an appeal. I answered what I think may be TD's angle. I also included I'm not a lawyer and it was JMO

Where did I say to you that you didn't respect Justice Goodman?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk