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

[Tamarind]

My first statement was a simple fact that relates to any case, not just this one.



I don't need videos to know about the concept of not talking to police. That is basically when a person is arrested and prior to getting a lawyer. It's quite simple really ... if the person has a believable story with valid information or evidence to substantiate it, they can explain everything they know to their lawyer, and the lawyer works on his clients behalf to explain to the Crown why they have the wrong guy.

That is not the case. I have spoken with many lawyers and I know that is not the case. Most lawyers would say , let them keep going, why give them anything, let them prove what they are saying and then show the jury how and why they are wrong. Basically once charged, like with electricity, the charge doesn't end until it is dis charged one way or another.

After my stepfather was murdered, we didn't need lawyers to explain to them what we knew, where we were and what we were doing at the time he was murdered. We told the truth, had no reasons to be arrested, and years later the guilty party was arrested, sentenced to life, and ultimately died in prison..

I am truly sorry for your loss. In life we can't always bring our own personal tragedy into every case thereafter. You say your situation was years ago, that may be a factor in why things were different. We are dealing with a whole new ball of wax these days.

Truth is a funny thing, eh? It would be a frosty day in July that I would sit in a jail cell going on 2 years with information that could exonerate me on a first degree murder charge if I knew the truth, knew who was responsible, and could tell/show my accusers they are wrong.

Maybe or maybe not, that would depend on what you know and who you feel is responsible for the situation. Sometimes it is better to let the scroll unroll and allow it to snare the bait. For all we know this could be a deadly situation for the accused, they may be safer where they are right now rather than out. At this point it is difficult to know what is happening as no preliminary hearing has taken place, and as I have said before that tells me that it is the defense that has more ammunition than the crown. Just my opinion.

 

[Tamarind]

Amen. If you are interviewed and have to worry about the police in an honest truthful interview, you and your country have WAY more to worry about than what you might be charged with.

Isn't that the truth!

 

[robynhood]

yes Great to see you again...Archangel....:thinking:..robynood///

 

[Carli]

Amen. If you are interviewed and have to worry about the police in an honest truthful interview, you and your country have WAY more to worry about than what you might be charged with.

Yes, we do!

http://www.straight.com/news/reason...project-highlights-causes-wrongly-convictions

http://www.aidwyc.org/

plus Innocence projects across the country...

and... lest we not forget Canada's most despised child, Omar Khadr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr

Presently, the world is in a stew over the release of the reports into CIA brutality (as if words on paper are the problem, not the sadistic events therein described.)

But what about the methods our Canadian LE uses to elicit witness testimony. Do not miss seeing the MSM, Canada's national broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation report entitled "The Interrogation Room".

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/episodes/2014-2015/the-interrogation-room

All of which contributes to my view "If it doesn't walk like a duck. If it doesn't talk like a talk. Then you know what? It may not be a duck."
Not only that, but even if it does walk and talk like a duck, it still may not be a duck!" MOO. IMHO.

We shall see. (modsnip) The trial will reveal some evidence and put it to the test. It should prove interesting, of course but, if you ask me, the prosecutors will need charismatic presence and extraordinarily well developed histrionic skills to "sell" the jury the massive amounts of circumstantial evidence that so far appears to be available to them to identify principals in the matter of these three presumed murders. MOO. IMHO. etc

 

[swedie]

That is not the case. I have spoken with many lawyers and I know that is not the case. Most lawyers would say , let them keep going, why give them anything, let them prove what they are saying and then show the jury how and why they are wrong. Basically once charged, like with electricity, the charge doesn't end until it is dis charged one way or another.




I am truly sorry for your loss. In life we can't always bring our own personal tragedy into every case thereafter. You say your situation was years ago, that may be a factor in why things were different. We are dealing with a whole new ball of wax these days.



Maybe or maybe not, that would depend on what you know and who you feel is responsible for the situation. Sometimes it is better to let the scroll unroll and allow it to snare the bait. For all we know this could be a deadly situation for the accused, they may be safer where they are right now rather than out. At this point it is difficult to know what is happening as no preliminary hearing has taken place, and as I have said before that tells me that it is the defense that has more ammunition than the crown. Just my opinion.

BBM - Interesting you believe that. I don't recall you saying this before. Care to share how you believe this to be the case? TIA.

 

[swedie]

Yes, we do!

http://www.straight.com/news/reason...project-highlights-causes-wrongly-convictions

http://www.aidwyc.org/

plus Innocence projects across the country...

and... lest we not forget Canada's most despised child, Omar Khadr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr

Presently, the world is in a stew over the release of the reports into CIA brutality (as if words on paper are the problem, not the sadistic events therein described.)

But what about the methods our Canadian LE uses to elicit witness testimony. Do not miss seeing the MSM, Canada's national broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation report entitled "The Interrogation Room".

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/episodes/2014-2015/the-interrogation-room

All of which contributes to my view "If it doesn't walk like a duck. If it doesn't talk like a talk. Then you know what? It may not be a duck."
Not only that, but even if it does walk and talk like a duck, it still may not be a duck!" MOO. IMHO.

We shall see. (modsnip) The trial will reveal some evidence and put it to the test. It should prove interesting, of course but, if you ask me, the prosecutors will need charismatic presence and extraordinarily well developed histrionic skills to "sell" the jury the massive amounts of circumstantial evidence that so far appears to be available to them to identify principals in the matter of these three presumed murders. MOO. IMHO. etc

BBM - Lest we not forget the massive amount of direct evidence to match up the massive amounts of your suggested circumstantial evidence, which will be presented at the trial. Ah yes, presumed to the general public; the Crown and even the prosecution knows otherwise now based on direct AND circumstantial evidence. IMO.

I think we may have been down this road before, but just rereading the article with the decision to bypass the PH for this case, both Paul B and Michael R's cases received direct indictments also. Both of those case had massive amounts of direct and circumstantial evidence to convict both . Pretty much slam dunk cases IIRC. And not to mention (for those who didn't follow MR's trial), the prosecution in MR's trial...well IMO they may as well not even had been there for lack of ammunition...but that's JMHO. But rightfully and legally so, everyone deserves fair, legal representation. Again MOO.

The move is rare but not unprecedented in sensational cases: the attorney general approved direct indictments in the trials of both 8-year-old Tori Stafford’s now-convicted murderer Michael Rafferty and sex killer Paul Bernardo.

Without the preliminary inquiry, the trial becomes more difficult for the defence, Di Luca said.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...arantee_verdict_in_tim_bosma_murder_case.html

 

[robynhood]

hmmmm I find your answers in your last posts very interesting...to ..Tamarind.....I like to hear WHY you feel the DEFENSE has more info because it is going to DIRECT INDICEMENT????...a bit of problems copying that paragraph here....( post #687in bold on swede reply)...I find that very ODD...( JMHO again)...????...Direct Indicment by the CROWN is done not very often and usually indicates it is the CROWN that has firm evidence...( So naturally I am puzzled by your reply....???

the likely hood of a farm needing an incinerator for BIRDS is RARE....I live in an area covered by farms...in which no one has an incinerator...I know these farmers...also interesting that we also live right near a small AIRPORT....birds flying out of the sky DOES not happen ...we are outside ...all summer with Our pool....

Hmmm I find it NOT just a coincidence that the incinerator was bought at the SAME time LB went missing....hmmm again...But than evidence will SPEAK LOUDER that websleuthers guesses before trial....I am convinced many eyes will be popping from what is to be heard...tweet tweet from Rock'in Robyn as I was called in the TORI TRIAL....see YA ALL HERE IN THE FALL OF 2015..BE PREPARED..i MAY HAVE A barf BAG BY MY SIDE...ROBYNHOOD....OF COURSE JMHO ...again....robynhood...chirpin again....:jail:

 

[matou]

IMO all of the evidence is there and the only thing the defense will have is to try and have evidence thrown out, like in the Rafferty trial. JMO

 

[Tamarind]

BBM - Interesting you believe that. I don't recall you saying this before. Care to share how you believe this to be the case? TIA.

I have said it many times before (not always in written form) I am sorry you have not been present when I have. I did explain why I feel this way in the post you quoted:
Maybe or maybe not, that would depend on what you know and who you feel is responsible for the situation. Sometimes it is better to let the scroll unroll and allow it to snare the bait. For all we know this could be a deadly situation for the accused, they may be safer where they are right now rather than out. At this point it is difficult to know what is happening as no preliminary hearing has taken place, and as I have said before that tells me that it is the defense that has more ammunition than the crown. Just my opinion.

 

[Tamarind]

hmmmm I find your answers in your last posts very interesting...to ..Tamarind.....I like to hear WHY you feel the DEFENSE has more info because it is going to DIRECT INDICEMENT????...a bit of problems copying that paragraph here....( post #687in bold on swede reply)...I find that very ODD...( JMHO again)...????...Direct Indicment by the CROWN is done not very often and usually indicates it is the CROWN that has firm evidence...( So naturally I am puzzled by your reply....???

the likely hood of a farm needing an incinerator for BIRDS is RARE....I live in an area covered by farms...in which no one has an incinerator...I know these farmers...also interesting that we also live right near a small AIRPORT....birds flying out of the sky DOES not happen ...we are outside ...all summer with Our pool....

Hmmm I find it NOT just a coincidence that the incinerator was bought at the SAME time LB went missing....hmmm again...But than evidence will SPEAK LOUDER that websleuthers guesses before trial....I am convinced many eyes will be popping from what is to be heard...tweet tweet from Rock'in Robyn as I was called in the TORI TRIAL....see YA ALL HERE IN THE FALL OF 2015..BE PREPARED..i MAY HAVE A barf BAG BY MY SIDE...ROBYNHOOD....OF COURSE JMHO ...again....robynhood...chirpin again....:jail:

My feeling was explained in the post you mention, see response to Swedie's post. I think Defense does have some say in Preliminary hearings not just the crown JMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

My first statement was a simple fact that relates to any case, not just this one.



I don't need videos to know about the concept of not talking to police. That is basically when a person is arrested and prior to getting a lawyer. It's quite simple really ... if the person has a believable story with valid information or evidence to substantiate it, they can explain everything they know to their lawyer, and the lawyer works on his clients behalf to explain to the Crown why they have the wrong guy.

After my stepfather was murdered, we didn't need lawyers to explain to them what we knew, where we were and what we were doing at the time he was murdered. We told the truth, had no reasons to be arrested, and years later the guilty party was arrested, sentenced to life, and ultimately died in prison.

Truth is a funny thing, eh? It would be a frosty day in July that I would sit in a jail cell going on 2 years with information that could exonerate me on a first degree murder charge if I knew the truth, knew who was responsible, and could tell/show my accusers they are wrong.

DP said, DM is not talking because he does not want to implicate himself.

 

[SnooperDuper]

While DM has some compelling reasons to keep his mouth shut, you would think that CN and maybe MS or the 3M's have compelling reasons to spill.

What are the odds that EVERYBODY stays quiet throughout the trial? Slim to none...

I don't think DM's cult of personality is strong enough that CN would spend 25 years in jail for him, or MS, 50, if they could help it.

 

[Sillybilly]

BBM - Interesting you believe that. I don't recall you saying this before. Care to share how you believe this to be the case? TIA.

You beat me to it swedie. How does the Crown applying for and getting a direct indictment provide ammunition to the defense when the process basically eliminates the dt's ability to see how the Crown will present the evidence? :waitasec:

ETA: Direct indictment basically removes the defence team's ability to know how the Crown will present the evidence, which IMO is not a benefit to the defence. Nor is it a devious ploy by the Crown ... simply an indicator of how strong they believe their case to be.

ETA again: ^^ I think I just said the same thing twice? Another cup of java is in order here.

 

[Sillybilly]

I am truly sorry for your loss. In life we can't always bring our own personal tragedy into every case thereafter. You say your situation was years ago, that may be a factor in why things were different. We are dealing with a whole new ball of wax these days.

<rsbm>

Thanks for your sentiments, but I was merely addressing my own experience with police interviews and truth which I believe is applicable to each and every case where a police interview has taken place. It's was an opinion based on my own experience related to the current discussion ... not something that I bring into "every case thereafter".

IMO, the chances of being wrongly accused now are much less than they were in the past (i.e. Morin, Truscott, Marshall cases so frequently referred to) with interrogations now being recorded and more safeguards in place to prevent the injustices of the past.

:moo:

 

[Sillybilly]

My feeling was explained in the post you mention, see response to Swedie's post. I think Defense does have some say in Preliminary hearings not just the crown JMO

Of course the defence has input wrt a preliminary, if there is one. I believe there were links posted earlier that indicate the defence does not have input to the Crown's decision to forego the preliminary and seek direct indictment. That aside, even the defence team indicates it is a "most unfortunate" situation for them:

from:
http://www.1047.ca/news/local-news/straight-to-trial/

Co-Counsel for Millard, Ravin Pillay called the ruling 'most unfortunate' saying the preliminary inquiry is critical for the defence to discover the Crown's case and there is no opportunity for the defence to appeal the direct indictment.

 

[swedie]

I have said it many times before (not always in written form) I am sorry you have not been present when I have. I did explain why I feel this way in the post you quoted:
Maybe or maybe not, that would depend on what you know and who you feel is responsible for the situation. Sometimes it is better to let the scroll unroll and allow it to snare the bait. For all we know this could be a deadly situation for the accused, they may be safer where they are right now rather than out. At this point it is difficult to know what is happening as no preliminary hearing has taken place, and as I have said before that tells me that it is the defense that has more ammunition than the crown. Just my opinion.

Sorry your explanation is as clear as mud to me. So are you suggesting DM has chosen to stay quiet because he has enemies on the outside who may harm or kill him if he was released? Back to the framing aspect? LE do not keep innocent people in jail for their own protection, it just doesn't happen that way. His mother has/had the funds to hide him away. Who would chose to be confined to a jail cell for years, subjected to eat the nasty foods served within, being cut off from all human contact except guards and the torture some suggest goes on while imprisoned. Heck if there's anyone who probably fears for her life, take a look at Casey A. She's doing a fine job of hiding from the public. MOO.

So what is DM going to do IF found not guilty through his trial? Do you predict he will; pick up where he left off or do you suspect he will go into hiding, fearing for his life from those who have not been arrested due to the lack of evidence? But yet again, the AG's decision to bypass the PH in this case seems to suggest the Crown has sufficient evidence for a conviction so I don't understand your statement of the defense having more ammo than the Crown. I often wonder if the accused took pictures or videos of their sick deeds. Like Paul B, Karla H Russell W and Luka M (interesting to note, these cases are Canadian). Or worse, that of the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs. Could this be the evidence the Crown has to prove guilt against the the charged on the three murders? If this is the case, my heart goes out to those who will make up the jury for this trial. Maybe the accused will plead guilty eventually sparing those the trauma of having to sit through such a trial. Time will tell. MOO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepropetrovsk_maniacs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Homolka

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Williams

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luka_Magnotta

 

[Sillybilly]

Sorry your explanation is as clear as mud to me. So are you suggesting DM has chosen to stay quiet because he has enemies on the outside who may harm or kill him if he was released? Back to the framing aspect? LE do not keep innocent people in jail for their own protection, it just doesn't happen that way. His mother has/had the funds to hide him away. Who would chose to be confined to a jail cell for years, subjected to eat the nasty foods served within, being cut off from all human contact except guards and the torture some suggest goes on while imprisoned. Heck if there's anyone who probably fears for her life, take a look at Casey A. She's doing a fine job of hiding from the public. MOO.

<rsbm>

If that was the case and I were DM, the Witness Protection Program and a nice villa in France might be more to my liking.

 

[robynhood]

wow ...who said the defense does NOT HAVE a SAY in a Preliminary hearing...we are a democracy so of course the defence has a say...I never said anything different...so PLEASE do not put words in my mouth...I am chocking here..JMHO...robynhood....We have been waiting a long time to hear DM so called story....speak up I cannot hear ya...rolmao now....IMO of course...

 

[Tamarind]

DP said, DM is not talking because he does not want to implicate himself.

When did he say that and in what context? Also anyone innocent or otherwise can inadvertently implicate themselves just by talking to police.

 

[Tamarind]

While DM has some compelling reasons to keep his mouth shut, you would think that CN and maybe MS or the 3M's have compelling reasons to spill.

What are the odds that EVERYBODY stays quiet throughout the trial? Slim to none...

I don't think DM's cult of personality is strong enough that CN would spend 25 years in jail for him, or MS, 50, if they could help it.

Are you saying they would blame him and take a deal ?