Wayne Millard: Dellen Millard Charged With Murder In The First Degree #1

[ABro]

As I pointed out earlier, in the video DM questions how they can go into the cave if boats are not allowed. He was told "With a dinghy" It seems DM was the only guy to question how if a sign prohibited boats from entering.JMO



There is no evidence from what I have read that he bought everyone dinner in Croatia or that he bought them jetskis. I didn't see any pictures of jetskis in the pics from Croatia ( that were accessible on Facebook)

There seems to be a penchant for assumptions that lack any evidence IMO JMO

The penchant for assumptions is yours -- you assumed the dinner and jetski purchases took place in Croatia.

He spread his wealth around freely with his friends, said Benoît Ménardo, a friend of Mr. Millard who lives in France.

“He didn’t count money or anything, when he was at a restaurant, he was always paying, always organizing things,” said Mr. Ménardo, who had not heard of Mr. Millard’s arrest until called by the National Post.

“He has two maybe three TVs and two X-Boxes just for his friends to play with. He was paying for all of it,” he said.

He bought his friends Seadoos and traveled with them widely in Greece, Alaska and France, he said

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...was-always-a-little-different-classmate-says/

 

[Tamarind]

The penchant for assumptions is yours -- you assumed the dinner and jetski purchases took place in Croatia.

When referring to the trip you said

"Let's also remember that as part of these "friendships" DM was buying everyone dinner and jetskis. ''

 

[robynhood]

go re read my post...seems like most post have selective reading as the whole post was not read...thanks so kindly robynhood...oh ya Is there evidence that someone else intervened and killed Tim bosma other than the ppl appearing at the Bosma door...maybe we are missing something that others know....so post links...thanks again so kindly robynhood

 

[Tamarind]

go re read my post...seems like most post have selective reading as the whole post was not read...thanks so kindly robynhood...oh ya Is there evidence that someone else intervened and killed Tim bosma other than the ppl appearing at the Bosma door...maybe we are missing something that others know....so post links...thanks again so kindly robynhood

There is no evidence to suggest that what I am saying did or didn''t happen. That, is my point. IMO TIA

 

[ABro]

When referring to the trip you said

"Let's also remember that as part of these "friendships" DM was buying everyone dinner and jetskis. ''

These friendships refers to the friendships, pointe finale.

lease:

 

[SnooperDuper]

As I pointed out earlier, in the video DM questions how they can go into the cave if boats are not allowed. He was told "With a dinghy" It seems DM was the only guy to question how if a sign prohibited boats from entering.JMO

You do realize that a dinghy is a type of boat, and the guys were basically saying, the rules don't apply to us?

DM acknowledges he is breaking the rules, with his comments.

 

[Carli]

You think that SB is only expressing her belief? She was THERE. She saw with her own eyes. I don't think her statement is 'suggesting they were possessed by the devil', I believe her statement meant that those TB left with are pure evil. I think she is entitled to feel that way. Nothing about a witch hunt here. MOO

How frustrating to write one post and then have to add several more to explain. I am positively 100 percent certain that SB did not literally see the devil leading two persons up her driveway. I am certain of that because the devil is not a living breathing entity, but an idea, a concept, intangible - a figment that exists only in the context of one's beliefs. I stated that SB is perfectly entitled to express her beliefs. There is nothing, or should have been nothing inherent to suggest any lack of compassion for SB. I might have said "Given the awful tragedy of her loss, and speaking through her unbearable grief, SB is perfectly entitled to express her beliefs" but I did not because I thought that would have been obvious. However, as it happens, I do not believe in the devil and, as I said earlier, I don't see how introducing such reification to the matter does anything other than inflame, confuse and potentially lead to an abuse of justice, just as it did in the Middle Ages and just as it does to this day in some parts of the world. If murders have been committed by these accused, neither of whom appear, at any time, to have been mentally unbalanced, then there was solid reason behind their actions, including, possibly, living, breathing other persons or organizations. The challenge facing the prosecution here, imo, is to put together all the actual bits of admissable evidence associated with each of these murders that will lead to a jury's determination that the accused were the perpetrators. IMO. The devil should have nothing to do with it. IMO. I say that even though, apparently, witch burnings were and are still very popular with the crowds.

 

[SnooperDuper]

How frustrating to write one post and then have to add several more to explain. I am positively 100 percent certain that SB did not literally see the devil leading two persons up her driveway. I am certain of that because the devil is not a living breathing entity, but an idea, a concept, intangible - a figment that exists only in the context of one's beliefs. I stated that SB is perfectly entitled to express her beliefs. There is nothing, or should have been nothing inherent to suggest any lack of compassion for SB. I might have said "Given the awful tragedy of her loss, and speaking through her unbearable grief, SB is perfectly entitled to express her beliefs" but I did not because I thought that would have been obvious. However, as it happens, I do not believe in the devil and, as I said earlier, I don't see how introducing such reification to the matter does anything other than inflame, confuse and potentially lead to an abuse of justice, just as it did in the Middle Ages and just as it does to this day in some parts of the world. If murders have been committed by these accused, neither of whom appear, at any time, to have been mentally unbalanced, then there was solid reason behind their actions, including, possibly, living, breathing other persons or organizations. The challenge facing the prosecution here, imo, is to put together all the actual bits of admissable evidence associated with each of these murders that will lead to a jury's determination that the accused were the perpetrators. IMO. The devil should have nothing to do with it. IMO. I say that even though, apparently, witch burnings were and are still very popular with the crowds.

Do you mean,

Compulsion by threats
17. A person who commits an offence under compulsion by threats of immediate death or bodily harm from a person who is present when the offence is committed is excused for committing the offence if the person believes that the threats will be carried out and if the person is not a party to a conspiracy or association whereby the person is subject to compulsion, but this section does not apply where the offence that is committed is high treason or treason, murder, piracy, attempted murder, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm, aggravated sexual assault, forcible abduction, hostage taking, robbery, assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm, aggravated assault, unlawfully causing bodily harm, arson or an offence under sections 280 to 283 (abduction and detention of young persons).
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 17; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 40.

?

 

[Carli]

So DM says he didn't do it.

AG MM says "when this [direct indictment] procedure is supported it's because there is solid evidence that the person being accused will be convicted."

Somebody is lying.

It's probably not MM because that would destroy her life and career.

There is absolutely no downside for DM if he lies. So he lies, lies, lies like a rug.

In fact, IMO, the AG could be charged with contempt of court for such an unthinkably outrageous statement. MOO. IMHO. I think she's saved only by virture of not having actually named names, although certainly everybody realizes who it is she's referring to. At the very least you may well expect her statement to be among the threshold arguments in throwing out the cases against the two accused. MOO. IMHO. Then what?

It is not up to an appointed government appointee to decide if there is solid evidence to convict a person of a crime. It is up to the AG to decide if there is sufficient evidence to warrant going directly to trial. Trials include a defense, something entirely absent from the AG's deliberations. Your post has accurately summarized how her statement has potentially biased the court - or at least the court of public opinion. You've determined that the accused is a liar because the AG has already determined his guilt. MOO. IMHO. I don't think she was lying when she made her statement. I just think she made a big mistake. MOO. IMHO. Kind of a very big one, actually.

 

[Carli]

Do you mean,

Compulsion by threats
17. A person who commits an offence under compulsion by threats of immediate death or bodily harm from a person who is present when the offence is committed is excused for committing the offence if the person believes that the threats will be carried out and if the person is not a party to a conspiracy or association whereby the person is subject to compulsion, but this section does not apply where the offence that is committed is high treason or treason, murder, piracy, attempted murder, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm, aggravated sexual assault, forcible abduction, hostage taking, robbery, assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm, aggravated assault, unlawfully causing bodily harm, arson or an offence under sections 280 to 283 (abduction and detention of young persons).
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 17; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 40.

?

No...

 

[SnooperDuper]

In fact, IMO, the AG could be charged with contempt of court for such an unthinkably outrageous statement. MOO. IMHO. I think she's saved only by virture of not having actually named names, although certainly everybody realizes who it is she's referring to. At the very least you may well expect her statement to be among the threshold arguments in throwing out the cases against the two accused. MOO. IMHO. Then what?

It is not up to an appointed government appointee to decide if there is solid evidence to convict a person of a crime. It is up to the AG to decide if there is sufficient evidence to warrant going directly to trial. Trials include a defense, something entirely absent from the AG's deliberations. Your post has accurately summarized how her statement has potentially biased the court - or at least the court of public opinion. You've determined that the accused is a liar because the AG has already determined his guilt. MOO. IMHO. I don't think she was lying when she made her statement. I just think she made a big mistake. MOO. IMHO. Kind of a very big one, actually.

No, simply:

DM says he has nothing to do with this crime at all ("They might as well accuse me of having been to the moon. There’s nothing real about it.")

MM says there exists solid (good, dependable, complete, factual) evidence when a direct indictment is allowed.

How can DM be not at all involved, when we can infer there is solid evidence that he was?

He's not saying wait until you hear my side of the story. He's keeping silent, as DP said, so he does not implicate himself.

While Mr. Millard maintains his innocence, Mr. Paradkar said his client is refusing to speak with police to avoid inadvertently implicating himself.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ma-murder-wrapped-in-mystery/article11935778/

It is DM's total, absolute denial that I question, especially in the face of his strategy of keeping quiet. He knows he's wrapped up so deeply in this, all he has to do is open his mouth and he's shot himself in the foot. But he's denying absolutely everything.

 

[Carli]

No, simply:

DM says he has nothing to do with this crime at all ("They might as well accuse me of having been to the moon. There’s nothing real about it.")

MM says there exists solid (good, dependable, complete, factual) evidence when a direct indictment is allowed.

How can DM be not at all involved, when we can infer there is solid evidence that he was?

He's not saying wait until you hear my side of the story. He's keeping silent, as DP said, so he does not implicate himself.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ma-murder-wrapped-in-mystery/article11935778/

It is DM's total, absolute denial that I question, especially in the face of his strategy of keeping quiet. He knows he's wrapped up so deeply in this, all he has to do is open his mouth and he's shot himself in the foot. But he's denying absolutely everything.

DM and MS have been charged with indictable offences. They have no choice but to appear before a judge and jury. Until they appear in court and have the charges read against them, they can't plead guilty. I suppose, it might please many if they would have the jail guards call a press conference so they could confess to the crimes with which they've been charged - but confessions are iffy, too. False confessions are among the chief reasons murder convictions are overturned. I understand that every lawyer counsels his clients to keep silent which is often difficult with the crowd at the gate screaming for blood and retribution - regardless of whether the accused are the true guilty parties or not. (I beg you, please don't regale me again with snippets gleaned from a dozen or so MSM articles and the half dozen or so LE pressers as absolute proof that the accused are murderers. Maybe they are. I don't know. And neither, at this point, does anybody else who wasn't at the alleged murder scenes.) IMO. MOO. IMHO.

 

[Tamarind]

You do realize that a dinghy is a type of boat, and the guys were basically saying, the rules don't apply to us?

DM acknowledges he is breaking the rules, with his comments.

No he does not acknowledge anything IMO. A dinghy could be considered a life raft.

 

[SnooperDuper]

No he does not acknowledge anything IMO. A dinghy could be considered a life raft.

Which is a type of boat?

 

[matou]

r.e. the blocked-off caves: The dinghy could easily pass over the rope blocking the caves. JMO

r.e. Noudga not being classy enough to be with DM when he entered his home and discovered his father's dead body: Noudga likely could not be a good enough actor to act shocked or surprised enough on the scene with LE present since she likely knew DM murdered his father. JMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

DM and MS have been charged with indictable offences. They have no choice but to appear before a judge and jury. Until they appear in court and have the charges read against them, they can't plead guilty.

On May 14, Hamilton police announced they had found Bosma’s burned remains on a sprawling Ayr, Ont., farm, a rural property with just a dilapidated barn registered to Millard. His charges were upgraded to first-degree murder. (Millard has already pleaded not guilty to those charges.)

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...osma_killing_charged_with_2_more_murders.html

Millard has pleaded not guilty to both murder charges as well as the murder of Tim Bosma. Smich has also pleaded not guilty to the murders of Laura Babcock and Tim Bosma.

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

I suppose, it might please many if they would have the jail guards call a press conference so they could confess to the crimes with which they've been charged - but confessions are iffy, too. False confessions are among the chief reasons murder convictions are overturned. I understand that every lawyer forbids his clients to keep silent which is often difficult with the crowd at the gate screaming for blood and retribution - regardless of whether the accused are the true guilty parties or not. (I beg you, please don't regale me again with snippets gleaned from a dozen or so MSM articles and the half dozen or so LE pressers as absolute proof that the accused are murderers. Maybe they are. I don't know. And neither, at this point, does anybody else who wasn't at the alleged murder scenes.) IMO. MOO. IMHO.

They have already had an opportunity to plead.

 

[Tamarind]

Which is a type of boat?

?? So is a garden gate in the right circumstances. I think the point which is being ignored here is that DM was the ONLY one to draw attention to the Prohibited Area, and asks how they can go there. No-one else cared enough to ask. That is the point I am making which keeps being overlooked conveniently . IMO

 

[Tamarind]

r.e. the blocked-off caves: The dinghy could easily pass over the rope blocking the caves. JMO

The dinghy was not DM's idea, he obviously had not been there before and had no knowledge of how to get inside the cave. No doubt a dinghy could pass over ropes as could a hovercraft, but that is not really the point of the discussion, is it?

r.e. Noudga not being classy enough to be with DM when he entered his home and discovered his father's dead body: Noudga likely could not be a good enough actor to act shocked or surprised enough on the scene with LE present since she likely knew DM murdered his father. JMO

So you are suggesting that DM's ex fiance is covering for a murder? That could well be libel ! IMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

So you are suggesting that DM's ex fiance is covering for a murder? That could well be libel ! IMO

I didn't see anything at all about the ex fiancee in that sentence. WTH?

 

[matou]

I didn't see anything at all about the ex fiancee in that sentence. WTH?

That's right. Libel? Really???I never wrote anything like that. I never suggested the ex knew anything at all about the murder so please read again. CN however could have known and would not be a good candidate to be an alibi. JMO