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

[Tamarind]

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

This implies, that the one who was on the scene (JS) could be a good enough actor to act shocked or surprised. Doesn't it? It is surely an inference is it not?

 

[matou]

This implies, that the one who was on the scene (JS) could be a good enough actor to act shocked or surprised. Doesn't it? It is surely an inference is it not?

No it doesn't. I'm sure she was not involved with anything so stop suggesting that is what I am saying. Please.

 

[SnooperDuper]

This implies, that the one who was on the scene (JS) could be a good enough actor to act shocked or surprised. Doesn't it? It is surely an inference is it not?

If you have tunnel vision, sure.

DM may have just used his ex-fiancee without her knowing what was up. Psychopaths are users. He could have used her.

 

[Tamarind]

These friendships refers to the friendships, pointe finale.

lease:

Thank you for clarifying what you were trying to say.

 

[Tamarind]

If you have tunnel vision, sure.

DM may have just used his ex-fiancee without her knowing what was up. Psychopaths are users. He could have used her.

We have no proof that he is a psychopath or that he was using anyone. I am beginning to feel like I have landed in Oz.

 

[Tamarind]

No it doesn't. I'm sure she was not involved with anything so stop suggesting that is what I am saying. Please.

Thank you for clarifying that what your post appeared to imply is not what you were suggesting. I will say no more about it. I do however think it is a good thing you did not mean what it appears to suggest.

 

[Carli]

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


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



They have already had an opportunity to plead.

I believe I've misunderstood the process, having had no direct or indirect experience with it. It was my understanding that those persons charged with a serious indictable offence - i.e. murder - cannot waive a trial.

However, somehow, somewhere in the piece, and after the accused has become fully aware of the incriminating prosecution evidence (discovery) the charges must be formally read against the accused, thus offering him or her the opportunity to plead "Guilty", "Not Guilty" or "No Contest". Given the interest in these cases, I'm puzzled by the lack of coverage of this this public event.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/criminal-procedure/

Whether an accused is charged with a summary conviction offence or an indictable offence, he is eventually called upon to state in open court whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. If the plea is not guilty, the case will proceed to trial; if guilty, then a sentencing will take place before the judge who received the plea. There are several procedural rules as to how guilty pleas may be entered and how a judge may sentence an accused. In all criminal cases, both the accused and the Crown may have statutory rights of appeal against the determination of guilt or innocence, as well as sentence.

 

[SnooperDuper]

I believe I've misunderstood the process, having had no direct or indirect experience with it. It was my understanding that those persons charged with a serious indictable offence - i.e. murder - cannot waive a trial.

However, somehow, somewhere in the piece, and after the accused has become fully aware of the incriminating prosecution evidence (discovery) the charges must be formally read against the accused, thus offering him or her the opportunity to plead "Guilty", "Not Guilty" or "No Contest". Given the interest in these cases, I'm puzzled by the lack of coverage of this this public event.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/criminal-procedure/

Whether an accused is charged with a summary conviction offence or an indictable offence, he is eventually called upon to state in open court whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. If the plea is not guilty, the case will proceed to trial; if guilty, then a sentencing will take place before the judge who received the plea. There are several procedural rules as to how guilty pleas may be entered and how a judge may sentence an accused. In all criminal cases, both the accused and the Crown may have statutory rights of appeal against the determination of guilt or innocence, as well as sentence.

Arrested in TB's case May 10, 2014 pleaded not guilty May 15, 2014

That was the day DP said, “There’s a story behind this which I can’t get into. Obviously it’s more than what it appears to be.”

I guess the "more" was the charges around LB and WM...

The Star reported the same incredible statement as the Globe

Although he maintains his innocence, he’s not speaking with police for fear of being unfairly implicated in the murder, Paradkar said.

I know you're concerned about these things?:

Millard is being held in the Barton Street East Jail in Hamilton, where he is under heavy guard but not in protective custody.

“I’m not saying isolation but similar to isolation,” Paradkar said.

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

And of course

Paradkar said his client is “remorseful” for Bosma’s death but maintains his innocence.

 

[ABro]

Thank you for clarifying what you were trying to say.

You're very welcome. Glad to see you're still working the Grimaldi thing, Princess Stef.

 

[Carli]

Arrested in TB's case May 10, 2014 pleaded not guilty May 15, 2014

That was the day DP said, “There’s a story behind this which I can’t get into. Obviously it’s more than what it appears to be.”

I guess the "more" was the charges around LB and WM...

The Star reported the same incredible statement as the Globe



I know you're concerned about these things?:



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

And of course

Well, that's very interesting. Thanks. Perhaps Ontario is unique with respect to accepting pleas of guilt? Certainly we know that discovery was not available to DM on May 15th because I distinctly recall that it took weeks and months of wrangling before the prosecution started turning over their evidence. Odd.

The Barton Street East jail reference. All I recall is that MSM reported somewhere that he's locked up alone in a small cell 23 hours a day. So I don't know what this "heavy guard" similar-to-isolation category could be. Anyway, I do notice that Star story is a report about the May 15th court hearing. He didn't make any plea then, at least not so reported.

 

[Tamarind]

You're very welcome. Glad to see you're still working the Grimaldi thing, Princess Stef.

thank you, your Grace !:dramaqueen:

 

[SnooperDuper]

Well, that's very interesting. Thanks. Perhaps Ontario is unique with respect to accepting pleas of guilt? Certainly we know that discovery was not available to DM on May 15th because I distinctly recall that it took weeks and months of wrangling before the prosecution started turning over their evidence. Odd.

Why is discovery important if you are going to plead guilty? You wanna know what they got on you before you cop to anything? What kind of confession is that?

The Barton Street East jail reference. All I recall is that MSM reported somewhere that he's locked up alone in a small cell 23 hours a day. So I don't know what this "heavy guard" similar-to-isolation category could be. Anyway, I do notice that Star story is a report about the May 15th court hearing. He didn't make any plea then, at least not so reported.

I am searching "DM pleaded" and found this so you know, who knows

Millard’s lawyer, Deepak Paradkar, said Thursday that his client is pleading guilty to the charges, suggesting that police are trying to turn the 28-year-old aviator into a serial killer by taking advantage of the notoriety of the Bosma murder.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...R-police-link-slayings-father-girlfriend.html

 

[Carli]

Why is discovery important if you are going to plead guilty? You wanna know what they got on you before you cop to anything? What kind of confession is that?



I am searching "DM pleaded" and found this so you know, who knows



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...R-police-link-slayings-father-girlfriend.html

Re the tabloid - Looks like a misprint or a flat out error to me. Probably the former since the rest of the article goes on to describe the next steps in the process. Obviously those steps would not take place if the suspect had already pleaded guilty.

Well, there are many, many reasons you would not plead guilty to a crime for which you're accused. Let's consider one example. You've been out drinking with a couple of your friends one night. There's an argument. You leave the bar still arguing with your buddy over the affections of the pretty girl. Fisticuffs ensue as girlfirend looks on. You lob your pal over the head with a beer bottle and he goes down like a ton of bricks. You try to revive him. Nada. You're scared. You stumble over to your car and go screaming off up the road, the pretty girl at your side.

Next morning. Knock, knock. It's the police. They come in and ask you some questions about your pal and the argument you had with him last night. You're nervous. You're late for work. You have a hangover. But the cops "take you downtown." They arrest you and after several hours of questioning, they charge you with the first degree murder of your buddy and they have witnesses from the bar who heard your argument inside, later heard there had been a fight outside, and someone saw your car take off, squealing tires and making doughnuts in the parking lot where the body of your friend was eventually found.

You honestly and absolutely do not know if you were the cause of your buddy's death. You think there's a pretty strong likelihood that you DID kill your friend. You DO know that you cannot afford the costs of retaining a lawyer for a year, maybe two or more. It's already been explained to you that your sentencing will be much lighter if you confess or plead guilty as soon as possible. You feel sick and beaten. You want this to be over. You admit you are guilty.

And that is why it will come as a big surprise to you to later learn, perhaps while the judge is determining your sentence, that the cause of your friend's death was not the beer bottle crack on the head but came as a result of your car driving over him several times as he lay drunk and semi-conscious in the tavern parking lot. The thing is, you were drunk and pretty beat up, too. You were not at the wheel of your car. Who was? You remember girlfriend, don't you? She certainly remembers you. She's the one who stated that you were the driver of your own car. (Who would doubt that?) She's the one who provided evidence under oath that you are a murderer.

Again, for the kazillionth time, an accused is not guilty until proven to be so. If, heaven forfend, you ever accused of a crime, you are under no obligation to prove your innocence, but your accusers must prove you are guilty.

By the way, I did learn one thing is researching this a bit further tonight. It is up to the Judge to determine whether or not to accept your guilty plea.

There's actually quite a bit online about the subject. For instance, initial questions are included in this article.

http://www.lawprotector.ca/criminal-guilty-plea.html

Importantly, your guilty plea, if accepted, cannot be withdrawn.

I'd like to know if Paradkar is, in fact, still representing DM. There seems to be no word on this subject. Didn't we read that this guy has a reputation for "pleading out" his clients at the end of the day? Could DM have fired him, possibly for that reason, I wonder?

 

[SnooperDuper]

Re the tabloid - Looks like a misprint or a flat out error to me. Probably the former since the rest of the article goes on to describe the next steps in the process. Obviously those steps would not take place if the suspect had already pleaded guilty.

Yup.

Well, there are many, many reasons you would not plead guilty to a crime for which you're accused. Let's consider one example. You've been out drinking with a couple of your friends one night. There's an argument. You leave the bar still arguing with your buddy over the affections of the pretty girl. Fisticuffs ensue as girlfirend looks on. You lob your pal over the head with a beer bottle and he goes down like a ton of bricks. You try to revive him. Nada. You're scared. You stumble over to your car and go screaming off up the road, the pretty girl at your side.

Next morning. Knock, knock. It's the police. They come in and ask you some questions about your pal and the argument you had with him last night. You're nervous. You're late for work. You have a hangover. But the cops "take you downtown." They arrest you and after several hours of questioning, they charge you with the first degree murder of your buddy and they have witnesses from the bar who heard your argument inside, later heard there had been a fight outside, and someone saw your car take off, squealing tires and making doughnuts in the parking lot where the body of your friend was eventually found.

You honestly and absolutely do not know if you were the cause of your buddy's death. You think there's a pretty strong likelihood that you DID kill your friend. You DO know that you cannot afford the costs of retaining a lawyer for a year, maybe two or more. It's already been explained to you that your sentencing will be much lighter if you confess or plead guilty as soon as possible. You feel sick and beaten. You want this to be over. You admit you are guilty.

And that is why it will come as a big surprise to you to later learn, perhaps while the judge is determining your sentence, that the cause of your friend's death was not the beer bottle crack on the head but came as a result of your car driving over him several times as he lay drunk and semi-conscious in the tavern parking lot. The thing is, you were drunk and pretty beat up, too. You were not at the wheel of your car. Who was? You remember girlfriend, don't you? She certainly remembers you. She's the one who stated that you were the driver of your own car. (Who would doubt that?) She's the one who provided evidence under oath that you are a murderer.

Again, for the kazillionth time, an accused is not guilty until proven to be so. If, heaven forfend, you ever accused of a crime, you are under no obligation to prove your innocence, but your accusers must prove you are guilty.

Well it's not exactly like that. The accused and the popo sit down and hash out an Agreed Statement of Facts, and it is called "agreed" because both sides have to agree that the content seems true and makes sense. That means your confession cannot contradict the information that LE have, and LE have to attempt to verify the details of your confession.

Here is Colonel RW's Agreed Statement of Facts from his guilty plea:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2010/10/19/agreed_statement_of_facts_in_williams_case.html

By the way, I did learn one thing is researching this a bit further tonight. It is up to the Judge to determine whether or not to accept your guilty plea.

So you see, the information provided by both sides, accused and LE, is still judged.

There's actually quite a bit online about the subject. For instance, initial questions are included in this article.

http://www.lawprotector.ca/criminal-guilty-plea.html

Importantly, your guilty plea, if accepted, cannot be withdrawn.

I'd like to know if Paradkar is, in fact, still representing DM. There seems to be no word on this subject. Didn't we read that this guy has a reputation for "pleading out" his clients at the end of the day? Could DM have fired him, possibly for that reason, I wonder?

Well now we have 4 concerned citizens: DM, MS, CN and MWJ who are all looking at extended staycations of varying lengths. Do you think everyone will stay quiet?

 

[Alethea Dice]

Well, that's very interesting. Thanks. Perhaps Ontario is unique with respect to accepting pleas of guilt? Certainly we know that discovery was not available to DM on May 15th because I distinctly recall that it took weeks and months of wrangling before the prosecution started turning over their evidence. Odd.

The Barton Street East jail reference. All I recall is that MSM reported somewhere that he's locked up alone in a small cell 23 hours a day. So I don't know what this "heavy guard" similar-to-isolation category could be. Anyway, I do notice that Star story is a report about the May 15th court hearing. He didn't make any plea then, at least not so reported.

FWIW, a plea can be changed to guilty at any time up to the date of the trial.

http://www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/self-represented-parties/guide-for-accused-in-criminal-cases/guide/

I'm kind of surprised about that similar to isolation that isn't protective custody cell as well. Apparently when "Josh" was in there, they were in segregation.

http://thespecgraphics-hamilton.com/BartonStreetJail/index.html

 

[deugirtni]

Interesting story, thanks for posting! I went on a tour of the 'Barton Street Jail' way back when it was first built before it opened, don't remember anything though, it was so long ago!

From the article you linked below (BBM) (and we will recall how DM's lawyer informed how DM was locked up for 23 hours a day). Sounds like there are all different names and uses for these segregation units referred to as 'the hole':

Josh has plenty: Sleeping next to one of Hamilton's most notorious alleged killers in "the hole" or watching a fellow inmate get his drug fix in an unimaginable way.

....

Inmates live either in ranges (blocks of cells) or dormitories (an open space with bunk beds and a common area where low-risk inmates have more freedom), or in segregation, where high-risk inmates are locked up for up to 23 hours a day.

....

When Josh first went back in this last time, he was on suicide watch in "the hole."

He'd taken a bunch of pills, he says, after he'd all but given up on life. When he recovered, he was moved to another segregation unit, where he says his next-door neighbour was accused murderer Dellen Millard.

From Wikipedia (BBM):

Solitary confinement is a form of imprisonment in which a prisoner is isolated from any human contact, though often with the exception of members of prison staff. It is sometimes employed as a form of punishment beyond incarceration for a prisoner and has been cited as an additional measure of protection for the inmate. This form of punishment is also given for violations of prison regulations. It is also used as a form of protective custody and to implement a suicide watch.

Solitary confinement is colloquially referred to in American English as "the hotbox", "the hole", "lockdown", "punk city", "SCU" (Solitary Confinement Unit), "AdSeg" (Administrative Segregation), the "SHU" (pronounced "shoe")—an acronym for "special housing unit" or "security housing unit", or "the pound"; and in British English as "the block" or "the cooler".[1][2] In Canada they are known as a Special Handling Unit.

....

I'm kind of surprised about that similar to isolation that isn't protective custody cell as well. Apparently when "Josh" was in there, they were in segregation.

http://thespecgraphics-hamilton.com/BartonStreetJail/index.html

 

[Carli]

I suppose one can call it the Royal Penthouse Empire Suite, if it sounds more attractive, but IMO, a horse stall is still a horse stall. MOO. IMHO. etc. From everything I've read so far TB and MS and company will be better off, by far, when and if they are imprisoned in a federal penitentiary than they are in the brutal limbo of Remand Centres, most especially, in the case of DM, in the infamous Barton Street Jail. IMO. IMHO. etc.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4450774-barton-street-jail-named-one-of-most-violent-institutions/

 

[Carli]

Yup.



Well it's not exactly like that. The accused and the popo sit down and hash out an Agreed Statement of Facts, and it is called "agreed" because both sides have to agree that the content seems true and makes sense. That means your confession cannot contradict the information that LE have, and LE have to attempt to verify the details of your confession.

Here is Colonel RW's Agreed Statement of Facts from his guilty plea:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2010/10/19/agreed_statement_of_facts_in_williams_case.html



So you see, the information provided by both sides, accused and LE, is still judged.



Well now we have 4 concerned citizens: DM, MS, CN and MWJ who are all looking at extended staycations of varying lengths. Do you think everyone will stay quiet?

Sorry and, of course, respectfully, I think it might be necessary to reconsider what, exactly, is an "Agreed Statement of Facts". So far as I understand it, this statement consists, under Section 655 of the Canadian Evidence Act, of those facts where the Defense agrees that the Prosecution need not provide proof.

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

Respectfully, this is a far cry from Defence and Prosecution agreeing to any aspects of the alleged crime. IMO. IMHO. For instance, to agree that a person is dead, thus relieving the Prosecution of the need to prove that the person is dead, in no way incriminates the accused in said death and the agreement may be primarily in order to promote a timely and efficient trial.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Sorry and, of course, respectfully, I think it might be necessary to reconsider what, exactly, is an "Agreed Statement of Facts". So far as I understand it, this statement consists, under Section 655 of the Canadian Evidence Act, of those facts where the Defense agrees that the Prosecution need not provide proof.

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

Respectfully, this is a far cry from Defence and Prosecution agreeing to any aspects of the alleged crime. IMO. IMHO. For instance, to agree that a person is dead, thus relieving the Prosecution of the need to prove that the person is dead, in no way incriminates the accused in said death and the agreement may be primarily in order to promote a timely and efficient trial.

I agree that they probably don't have to agree to specific aspects of the crime. I'm sure the Prosecution is quite happy to have them plead guilty and provide the statement that admits what they did. However, it has nothing to do with promoting a timely and efficient trial (if I'm understanding you correctly), because once you plead guilty and your guilty plea is accepted, there is no trial. The next court date will be sentencing.

JMO

 

[Carli]

I agree that they probably don't have to agree to specific aspects of the crime. I'm sure the Prosecution is quite happy to have them plead guilty and provide the statement that admits what they did. However, it has nothing to do with promoting a timely and efficient trial (if I'm understanding you correctly), because once you plead guilty and your guilty plea is accepted, there is no trial. The next court date will be sentencing.

JMO

Yes, I realize that Alethea. For instance, let's say, both side agree to agree that the murder weapon was a crossbow. It will therefore not be necessary for prosecutors to produce endless testimony about the lethal capability of crossbows and the defence won't have to produce matching testimony to counter when it is an incontestable fact that the victim was found dead with a crossbow arrow lodged between his shoulderblades. What I meant was the Agreed Statement of Facts promotes time saving efficiency because each side reaches agreement on evidence or events that need not be introduced at trial.

Also, as noted in the link, once a Statement of Fact is agreed between the parties, Prosecutors are prohibited from raising the matter at trial anyway.

Also, with regard to the accused, his/her agreed statement as to fact may be self-incriminating and cannot be rescinded.

As I understand it, this has nothing to do with confessions although, I presume, if a murderer confesses his lawyers might want to use this route in order to hear the points of the Prosecutors case so that both sides can specify and formalize exactly what he's pleading guilty to. I suppose this could be helpful in warding off false confessions. I don't know. MOO. IMHO.