Dellen Millard: Innocent Dupe? Alternative Theories

[Alethea Dice]

Respectfully, may I ask you to clarify your post as it does not make sense or relevance to anything I mentioned in my post which you are quoting. Where did I write anything stating he talked about Tim to reporters? I never even mentioned reading an article let alone mentioned whether DM divulged or refused to talk about Tim as you are implying from my understanding. kay:

Swedie, in your post you stated that it was interesting that he "wouldn't speak to investigators during interrogation but will speak to reporters", and that you felt the reason for that was "Because he has had eight months now to go over the evidence and concoct a cockamamie story where he believes he can place the blame onto someone else." It's understandable that would be read as you think that he has told some story to a reporter placing the blame elsewhere. Otherwise, if he didn't talk to the reporters about the case at all, why would that be the reason he is willing to talk to them? You then used his father as an example of him having more time to manipulate his answers, leading one to wonder if it was his father you were talking about all along.

Perhaps if you could just clarify what it was that you were referring to that he wouldn't talk to LE about, but was willing to speak to reporters about, that would help to sort out all the confusion.

Sorry, but I'm just not seeing the connection since he also refused to talk to the reporters about anything that LE would have been asking him.

HTH and TIA.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Okay then, and respectfully, what reporters were you referring to that he is now talking to, if not the ones from the Star in the recent jailhouse interview that is the current topic of discussion and the only reporters we know he has spoken to (asides from couple words to Ms Hayes). And what "cockamamie story" were you suggesting he has concocted in his 8 months in jail that he wouldn't speak to LE about? Isnt it Tim's death they would be questioning him about? Are you suggesting now you were talking about his father? Sorry but that sounds like back-peddling - maybe it isn't, but if it isn't back-peddling and you were referring to his statement about his father all along, do you have evidence he didn't cooperate with LE when his father died?

So far as we know he hasn't been questioned about his father since May, nor does this Court proceeding concern the death of his father. He is detained for the murder of Tim Bosma, not Wayne Millard.

In terms of the brain bleed, my best guess is that the reporter asked him why he told people his father died of aneurysm when it was actually a gunshot wound to the head and deemed a suicide. Maybe that's just the answer he is most comfortable with under that circumstance. His answer, to me, was satisactory and if he wasn't charged with someone else's murder I don't think anyone would begrudge him the right to not share the information that his dad committed suicide if that is what happened (and at this point the case has been re-opened for some time with an expert overseeing the matter and I haven't heard DM was charged with the murder of his father).

Sent using Tapatalk 2

This is also how I imagine the conversation about the "brain bleed" went. I doubt the reporter asked how his father died, since we already know that, but rather why he told others what he did.

In regards to the first reporter, I think if she had made an appointment instead of just showing up, and asked those kinds of questions, the results of that interview may have been different.

JMO

 

[Snoofo]

BBM
Could you kindly show me where I wrote DM didn't cooperate with LE when his father died? I think you may be reading way more into my posts than what is there. IMO it is more than back peddling; it's full of assumptions and accusations. I did not even mention anything to do with charges against him for the death of his father, but seeing as you have brought it up, allow me to suggest this. Regarding possible charges against him for the death of his father; just because it hasn't made it into the MSM, does not mean anything. The investigation may still be ongoing just as LB's case may be. Also with the PB in force, this could be why we are not privy to possible further charges. Again I will make Michael R's case a prime example of PB and further charges. The public was not aware of the sexual assault causing bodily harm charges against him until the pretrial hearing. Generally speaking, some cases take years to investigate. MOO.

Please explain what you were referring to in the portion of your post I quoted my post #833. When did he maintain his right to remain silent with LE and when did he speak to reporters? Perhaps that will end the confusion?

Sent using Tapatalk 2

 

[swedie]

Let me just put it this way. Why bother talking to a reporter as there is nothing they can do for DM to get him out of the situation he now finds himself in. He knew his interview would be published to the MSM and that to me is his way of trying to manipulate/control how the public views him. The interrogator(s) should have been the one(s) he spoke to as they could have been the ones to set him free. Maybe Snoofo and Alethea Dice would like answer with their opinions as to why they believe he spoke to a reporter. And the fact he was advised not to speak with anyone and he did after all this time, to me shows he was finally prepared with his answers based on discovery in his possession, should he happen to slip up to the reporter. Certainly he is aware on the articles in the MSM regarding him and this case and the numerous questions people are speculating about. He had now had many months to to concoct answers to fit those speculations. That is the whole just to my post. Hope this clears up any confusion and looking forward to Snoofo's and Althea Dice's opinions, or anyone else who wishes to express their opinion as to why DM spoke to a reporter and what is he hoping to accomplish or the benefits of the interview. MOO.

 

[swedie]

Please explain what you were referring to in the portion of your post I quoted my post #833. When did he maintain his right to remain silent with LE and when did he speak to reporters? Perhaps that will end the confusion?

Sent using Tapatalk 2

During the intense questioning overnight Friday and into Saturday afternoon, Millard, exercised his right to remain silent, said his lawyer, Deepak Paradkar.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...spect-to-be-charged-with-first-degree-murder/

In two separate prison interviews with the Star, a reflective and articulate Millard spoke candidly about his life, his aspirations and the stunning fall from grace that took him from a life of wealth to the dreary, institutional seclusion of the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre.

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

HTH

 

[Archangel7]

I'm somewhat perplexed why DP hasn't asked to be removed as counsel.

 

[Snoofo]

During the intense questioning overnight Friday and into Saturday afternoon, Millard, exercised his right to remain silent, said his lawyer, Deepak Paradkar.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...spect-to-be-charged-with-first-degree-murder/

In two separate prison interviews with the Star, a reflective and articulate Millard spoke candidly about his life, his aspirations and the stunning fall from grace that took him from a life of wealth to the dreary, institutional seclusion of the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre.

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

HTH

Thanks for taking the time to do that. And the results are what I thought. So when you also said this,

Because he has had eight months now to go over the evidence and concoct a cockamamie story where he believes he can place the blame onto someone else.

,
I suspect I am not the only one who thought you were talking about a story in relation to TB, otherwise what? But when I made that honest assumption, you said you never mentioned anything about DM talking to reporters about TB, or that you even read the article! So maybe you didnt read the article but anyone would infer you were talking about the article. And now you admit, or so it seems (or I'm assuming?) that indeed you were talking about the recent Star article.

Then you started talking about the brain bleed comments, as though maybe that is what you thought was the story he is now making up after 8 months, in reply to a post of Juballee's. When I suggested this, sinced you clearly indicated my first suggestion was wrong, you suggested you never said any such things. Ok.....

I admit I've made assumptions, but one can only assume when you aren't clear, and you still haven't clarified what cockamamie story he has made up about anything and to whom.

Anyway, in order to stop assuming what you might be talking about, AD and I have asked you for clarification of what you meant, if not what was "wrongly" assumed; instead of clarifying, you have asked us to explain why DM spoke to reporters. ?? Ok..... I will give you the courtesy of a response to your question.

Maybe he simply decided that, after 8 months in isolation, he needed to talk to someone, anyone, as often as he can without getting into the details of the case (which his lawyer would have advised him against).
We don't know whether these interviews were planned or if like the last time they were walk-ins. I am not sure after 8 months isolation anyone can say his decisions weren't based solely on loneliness and stir craziness. Don't you think that's very possible, Swedie?

Sent using Tapatalk 2

 

[Snoofo]

I'm somewhat perplexed why DP hasn't asked to be removed as counsel.

AA, why in the world would he do that?

Out of curiosity, weren't you one of the people who was sure DM would have been the one to fire him?

Sent using Tapatalk 2

 

[Archangel7]

AA, why in the world would he do that?

Out of curiosity, weren't you one of the people who was sure DM would have been the one to fire him?

Sent using Tapatalk 2

Seldom does one(the defendant) improve his chances by speaking to the wrong people or out of court without advice from counsel. Currently, a jailhouse interview isn't a controlled environment with a protocol that is designed to benefit the accused, nor does it have the authority to benefit him. He had ample opportunity to do that either with or without counsel initially upon arrest.

DM still has time to seek other counsel. I assumed the defendant to be cognizant of reality and the grave situation he is in as an obvious motivation to conduct himself accordingly.

It would seem DM won't take standard legal advice and DP has a client that won't heed it. Quite the quandary.

 

[Snoofo]

Seldom does one(the defendant) improve his chances by speaking to the wrong people or out of court without advice from counsel. Currently, a jailhouse interview isn't a controlled environment with a protocol that is designed to benefit the accused, nor does it have the authority to benefit him. He had ample opportunity to do that either with or without counsel initially upon arrest.

DM still has time to seek other counsel. I assumed the defendant to be cognizant of reality and the grave situation he is in as an obvious motivation to conduct himself accordingly.

It would seem DM won't take standard legal advice and DP has a client that won't heed it. Quite the quandary.

What if DP has enough confidence in DM's character to have not made a big deal of interviews as long as he doesn't talk about any open investigations (which he did not). I suppose that would be unusual but maybe he does give a somewhat positive impression and they agreed some small talk wouldn't hurt. DP is a chatty guy himself and does not conduct himself like a traditional defence attorney (outside of L.A.!) so who knows. DP saying he didn't approve any interview could mean several things - or there are several things it could not mean. I cannot see how this particular interview hurt him in any substantive way, except for the attacks on phrases he may have just scrambled up out of being nervous (i.e. loved him "more than I love myself" could have very well been a mashup of an expression like "more than life itself". People mishear words and create new expressions or words like that all the time (as a matter of fact, I just saw one today on WS!).

Sent using Tapatalk 2

 

[Archangel7]

What if DP has enough confidence in DM's character to have not made a big deal of interviews as long as he doesn't talk about any open investigations (which he did not). I suppose that would be unusual but maybe he does give a somewhat positive impression and they agreed some small talk wouldn't hurt. DP is a chatty guy himself and does not conduct himself like a traditional defence attorney (outside of L.A.!) so who knows. DP saying he didn't approve any interview could mean several things - or there are several things it could not mean. I cannot see how this particular interview hurt him in any substantive way, except for the attacks on phrases he may have just scrambled up out of being nervous (i.e. loved him "more than I love myself" could have very well been a mashup of an expression like "more than life itself". People mishear words and create new expressions or words like that all the time (as a matter of fact, I just saw one today on WS!).

Sent using Tapatalk 2

Those same people that "mishear" will likely be in the jury pool.
Also there are authorities that also pay attention to jailhouse statements.
Most lawyers are reluctant to represent a client that won't take advice as are doctors and other professionals. It's just not a good thing to do publicly, when the public will be the very ones to hold DM's fate. Depending on their own interpretation.

I guess those are the issues involved and the potentially harmful outcome IMO.

 

[Variant]

What if DP has enough confidence in DM's character to have not made a big deal of interviews as long as he doesn't talk about any open investigations (which he did not). I suppose that would be unusual but maybe he does give a somewhat positive impression and they agreed some small talk wouldn't hurt. DP is a chatty guy himself and does not conduct himself like a traditional defence attorney (outside of L.A.!) so who knows. DP saying he didn't approve any interview could mean several things - or there are several things it could not mean. I cannot see how this particular interview hurt him in any substantive way, except for the attacks on phrases he may have just scrambled up out of being nervous (i.e. loved him "more than I love myself" could have very well been a mashup of an expression like "more than life itself". People mishear words and create new expressions or words like that all the time (as a matter of fact, I just saw one today on WS!).

Sent using Tapatalk 2

If he was mis-speaking in the interview that to me proves AA's point about the danger to the accused of giving interviews.

Why not think he mis-spoke when he said he was innocent?

 

[Alethea Dice]

If he was mis-speaking in the interview that to me proves AA's point about the danger to the accused of giving interviews.

Why not think he mis-spoke when he said he was innocent?

Where does it say he was "mis-speaking" in the interview? I read scrambled up phrases, people mishearing and people creating new expressions or words. Those to me are all different than "mis-speaking".

TIA
JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

Let me just put it this way. Why bother talking to a reporter as there is nothing they can do for DM to get him out of the situation he now finds himself in. He knew his interview would be published to the MSM and that to me is his way of trying to manipulate/control how the public views him. The interrogator(s) should have been the one(s) he spoke to as they could have been the ones to set him free. Maybe Snoofo and Alethea Dice would like answer with their opinions as to why they believe he spoke to a reporter. And the fact he was advised not to speak with anyone and he did after all this time, to me shows he was finally prepared with his answers based on discovery in his possession, should he happen to slip up to the reporter. Certainly he is aware on the articles in the MSM regarding him and this case and the numerous questions people are speculating about. He had now had many months to to concoct answers to fit those speculations. That is the whole just to my post. Hope this clears up any confusion and looking forward to Snoofo's and Althea Dice's opinions, or anyone else who wishes to express their opinion as to why DM spoke to a reporter and what is he hoping to accomplish or the benefits of the interview. MOO.

I was simply asking for an explanation of your reasoning because I don't understand the connection as stated. But since you ask for my opinion...

First of all, I don't think he agreed to the interviews because he thought they could help get him out of his situation. And speaking to the interrogator about the same things he spoke to the reporters about also would not have gotten him out of the situation or set him free. Even without full disclosure, why or how would he "slip up" to the reporter when he refused to answer anything at all about the case other than that one sentence?

I don't really know why he agreed to talk to the reporters. With all the ugly speculations being printed about him, maybe he just wanted to publicly give his side of those things that are not related to the case or his upcoming trial. If someone was talking bad about you, would you not want to also give your side of the story? Is that manipulating or controlling how people view you? Or is it simply giving your side as well, and letting people make up their own minds based on both sides rather than just the one that's already out there? Maybe he just wanted to get the message out to his girlfriend that he loves her. Or maybe he's just lonely. Regardless of why he chose to speak, I don't see that it has either hurt or helped him, especially since he didn't talk about anything to do with the investigation.

Did he go against his lawyer's advice? Was he advised not to speak to "anyone"? As far as I can tell from what I've read, he was advised to exercise his right to remain silent, which he has. He has not discussed the case or his involvement or non-involvement in it. All I know about his lawyer's advice in regards to the interview, is what Ann B stated on her blog - that he did not consult his lawyer about it. If he didn't consult with him about it, I guess DP couldn't very well approve it ahead of time. I don't think that exercising your right to remain silent means that you can't talk to anyone about anything at any time. It simply means that you remain silent about that situation.

JMO

 

[Snoofo]

Those same people that "mishear" will likely be in the jury pool.
Also there are authorities that also pay attention to jailhouse statements.
Most lawyers are reluctant to represent a client that won't take advice as are doctors and other professionals. It's just not a good thing to do publicly, when the public will be the very ones to hold DM's fate. Depending on their own interpretation.

I guess those are the issues involved and the potentially harmful outcome IMO.

Thanks. While I do understand your point completely, and while the jailhouse interview could have gone terribly wrong and backfired if he decided to speak up about the case, he did remain silent about it, with the exception of the one piece of information he wished to relay ("I didn't do it") .

Plus, we do not know what advice DP gave DM in the past about future interviews. Maybe they saw the Molly interview as a missed opportunity to balance out the court of public opinion against him. DP doesn't use traditional practices at all times, from what he's told us himself. This could be one of his Napoleonic strategies!

Time will tell if DP and DM aren't on the same page.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

 

[Archangel7]

Thanks. While I do understand your point completely, and while the jailhouse interview could have gone terribly wrong and backfired if he decided to speak up about the case, he did remain silent about it, with the exception of the one piece of information he wished to relay ("I didn't do it") .

Plus, we do not know what advice DP gave DM in the past about future interviews. Maybe they saw the Molly interview as a missed opportunity to balance out the court of public opinion against him. DP doesn't use traditional practices at all times, from what he's told us himself. This could be one of his Napoleonic strategies!

Time will tell if DP and DM aren't on the same page.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

Certainly, time will tell how the interviews were taken.

I don't think the interview went terribly wrong or backfired either. I just think anything said after numerous opportunities to tell his story and indicate his non involvement/innocence is detrimental and viewed negatively.

I find it simply a characteristic of human nature for the public who might view a person as an innocent to clear that upfront and resolve the issue.

If for whatever reason it proceeds further, the reasonable public thought process is twofold. 1) why speak anything publicly that can be interpreted without beneficial judicial protocol if one is actually innocent and 2) Why plead your case now, publicly, instead of previously upon arrest, arraignment, bond hearing, pretrial, preliminary hearing, etc, etc where it counts and you had the attention of all the players?

To not proclaim one's innocence then, yet to do so now simply gives the public pause and instills a question as to why now and why now without the counsel that was retained? Did one fail in the judicial attempt and now one must try it in the court of public opinion?

We seem to be witnessing two diametrically opposed strategies:

MS&Co. with zero info. and zero apparent ego and showmanship from the start
DM&Co. with copious info. and copious apparent ego and showmanship from the start

Just my observations....

 

[Juballee]

Certainly, time will tell how the interviews were taken.

I don't think the interview went terribly wrong or backfired either. I just think anything said after numerous opportunities to tell his story and indicate his non involvement/innocence is detrimental and viewed negatively.

I find it simply a characteristic of human nature for the public who might view a person as an innocent to clear that upfront and resolve the issue.

If for whatever reason it proceeds further, the reasonable public thought process is twofold. 1) why speak anything publicly that can be interpreted without beneficial judicial protocol if one is actually innocent and 2) Why plead your case now, publicly, instead of previously upon arrest, arraignment, bond hearing, pretrial, preliminary hearing, etc, etc where it counts and you had the attention of all the players?

To not proclaim one's innocence then, yet to do so now simply gives the public pause and instills a question as to why now and why now without the counsel that was retained? Did one fail in the judicial attempt and now one must try it in the court of public opinion?

We seem to be witnessing two diametrically opposed strategies:

MS&Co. with zero info. and zero apparent ego and showmanship from the start
DM&Co. with copious info. and copious apparent ego and showmanship from the start

Just my observations....

From what I recall, he did state his innocence at the beginning, through his council. I fully recall DP stating that his client is 100 percent innocent, and it was announced publicly by council for both defendants that they would be pleading not guilty, so to say that they did not proclaim their innocence until now is an exaggeration.

You say that anything said after numerous opportunities to tell his story is detrimental and viewed negatively, but what is the optimal number of opportunities when one should speak out? Somewhere in between instantly giving the police words that they will use against you and the time when the public must think you're a liar for waiting too long? There must be some sweet number of opportunities that hits the marker for being sincere and believable, since surely protesting too much or too quickly is also a marker of guilt just as protesting too late is.

Now I hear you say 'why now?', but I seem to recall many people here saying 'why not now?' all along. People wanted to hear his words, for DM himself to say he didn't do it, but now that he has obliged everyone and said it, now everyone wants him to have said it months earlier from what it seems to me.

I'm not sure how we can classify one interview by DM as showing an ego. MS said almost as much during the interview with Molly Hayes where he didn't talk; he also gets visits from him mom and misses his GF, he even talked about how people recognize his name in jail from what I recall. That to me shows more ego than the words DM was quoted as saying in his interview.

I think the ego you are attributing to DM is really just the fact that the media has written articles about everything from his childhood to his grandparents to publishing photos of his ex, and yet MSM have no interest in any stories about MS from what I have seen. That has nothing to do with either man's ego from what I can tell, since it's not like DM is planting the stories in the media about himself. And I doubt it is part of either of their strategies, unless MS's close relative who was named as one of the 'top 30 under 30 in media' recently is using her connections to ensure plenty of negative DM stories in the media and no MS stories at all.

Just my opinions and observations.

 

[robynhood]

From what I recall, he did state his innocence at the beginning, through his council. I fully recall DP stating that his client is 100 percent innocent, and it was announced publicly by council for both defendants that they would be pleading not guilty, so to say that they did not proclaim their innocence until now is an exaggeration.

You say that anything said after numerous opportunities to tell his story is detrimental and viewed negatively, but what is the optimal number of opportunities when one should speak out? Somewhere in between instantly giving the police words that they will use against you and the time when the public must think you're a liar for waiting too long? There must be some sweet number of opportunities that hits the marker for being sincere and believable, since surely protesting too much or too quickly is also a marker of guilt just as protesting too late is.

Now I hear you say 'why now?', but I seem to recall many people here saying 'why not now?' all along. People wanted to hear his words, for DM himself to say he didn't do it, but now that he has obliged everyone and said it, now everyone wants him to have said it months earlier from what it seems to me.

I'm not sure how we can classify one interview by DM as showing an ego. MS said almost as much during the interview with Molly Hayes where he didn't talk; he also gets visits from him mom and misses his GF, he even talked about how people recognize his name in jail from what I recall. That to me shows more ego than the words DM was quoted as saying in his interview.

I think the ego you are attributing to DM is really just the fact that the media has written articles about everything from his childhood to his grandparents to publishing photos of his ex, and yet MSM have no interest in any stories about MS from what I have seen. That has nothing to do with either man's ego from what I can tell, since it's not like DM is planting the stories in the media about himself. And I doubt it is part of either of their strategies, unless MS's close relative who was named as one of the 'top 30 under 30 in media' recently is using her connections to ensure plenty of negative DM stories in the media and no MS stories at all.

Just my opinions and observations.

>>>>JMHO...on the above issues...concerning Dellen"s comment about being Innocent....Yes he proclaimed his innocence Imediately thru his lawyer......BUT his lawyer also said that there is "MORE to this story"....well whjere is Dellen's story?...aside from saying he is innocent? ......IMO this whole story may never be told....

1.I personally find it extremely HARD to explain just the little we know....I am referring back to the list that SWEDE made months ago and posted here.....on the timeline SWEDE created on the main page...lisiting inciderator..in vacant land, Tim bosma's body reduced to ashes on DM farm , TIM bosma's truck hidden on DM mom;s driveway ,.....

2. Videos/cameras as they record ( Le have but we are not allow to see...from the night Tim went missing, more videos from neighbours of DM mom when the truck mysterious arrived on her driveway....!...they exist...it was said in the interviews after tim was found.

3. JMO ..I am sure there is evidence we have not heard...( imo only what was left in Tim bosma's truck...a murder was suppose to happen there....

4.JMO what was found around that incinerator ????...it was taken away ...one can only speculate....maybe a murder 's evidence will appear?


...I am saying JMO and speculating here....in the court room the crown will present their case...and than of course their will be TIME to hear DM story like his lawyer said....they must have the evidence from the crown..Just my thoughts on the subject...JMHO here....lots more I am sure...let us hear DM innocence?????....robynhood.

 

[Snoofo]

>>>>JMHO...on the above issues...concerning Dellen"s comment about being Innocent....Yes he proclaimed his innocence Imediately thru his lawyer......BUT his lawyer also said that there is "MORE to this story"....well were is Dellen's story?...aside from saying he is innocent? ......IMO this whole story may never be told....

1.I personally find it extremely HARD to explain just the little we know....I am referring back to the list that SWEDE made months ago and posted here.....on the timeline SWEDE created on the main page...lisiting inciderator..in vacant land, Tim bosma's body reduced to ashes on DM farm , TIM bosma's truck hidden on DM mom;s driveway ,.....

2. Videos( Le have but we are not allow to see...from the night Tim went missing, more videos from neighbours of DM mom when the truck mysterious arrived on her driveway....!...they exist...it was said in the interviews after tim was found.

3. JMO ..I am sure there is evidence we have not heard...( imo only what was left in Tim bosma's truck...a murder was suppose to happen there....

4.JMO what was found around that incinerator ????...it was taken away ...one can only speculate....maybe a murder 's evidence will appear?


...I am saying JMO and speculating here....in the court room the crown will present their case...and than of course their will be TIME to hear DM story like his lawyer said....they must have the evidence from the crown..Just my thoughts on the subject...JMHO here....lots more I am sure...let us hear DM innocence?????....robynhood.

Thanks Robynhood. Hopefully the truth will come out in Court. I wonder who will be tried first. I dont think there was any confirmation of a video at MB's neighbour's, just speculation maybe because it's a nice neighbourhood. You might be thinking of a close-circuit camera at DM's neighbour's house although I can't recall which LE presser or interview confirmed this.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

 

[Alethea Dice]

From what I recall, he did state his innocence at the beginning, through his council. I fully recall DP stating that his client is 100 percent innocent, and it was announced publicly by council for both defendants that they would be pleading not guilty, so to say that they did not proclaim their innocence until now is an exaggeration.

You say that anything said after numerous opportunities to tell his story is detrimental and viewed negatively, but what is the optimal number of opportunities when one should speak out? Somewhere in between instantly giving the police words that they will use against you and the time when the public must think you're a liar for waiting too long? There must be some sweet number of opportunities that hits the marker for being sincere and believable, since surely protesting too much or too quickly is also a marker of guilt just as protesting too late is.

Now I hear you say 'why now?', but I seem to recall many people here saying 'why not now?' all along. People wanted to hear his words, for DM himself to say he didn't do it, but now that he has obliged everyone and said it, now everyone wants him to have said it months earlier from what it seems to me.

I'm not sure how we can classify one interview by DM as showing an ego. MS said almost as much during the interview with Molly Hayes where he didn't talk; he also gets visits from him mom and misses his GF, he even talked about how people recognize his name in jail from what I recall. That to me shows more ego than the words DM was quoted as saying in his interview.

I think the ego you are attributing to DM is really just the fact that the media has written articles about everything from his childhood to his grandparents to publishing photos of his ex, and yet MSM have no interest in any stories about MS from what I have seen. That has nothing to do with either man's ego from what I can tell, since it's not like DM is planting the stories in the media about himself. And I doubt it is part of either of their strategies, unless MS's close relative who was named as one of the 'top 30 under 30 in media' recently is using her connections to ensure plenty of negative DM stories in the media and no MS stories at all.

Just my opinions and observations.

Yes, he did maintain his innocence right from the beginning and it was related to the public through his lawyer and, yes, the term 100% not guilty was used.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2013/05/20130513-151645.html

When you re-read that Molly Hayes interview article, MS definitely comes across as much more cocky than DM. DM basically just said he couldn't talk and left. MS's comments were more cocky? snarky? antagonistic?

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4075078-exclusive-jail-visits-with-bosma-s-accused-killers/

I think the only reason for all of the stories about DM, and none about MS, is because DM was someone who had some notoriety in the press when he was young and whose family also had accomplishments that had been noted in the press. Whereas MS was just the gangsta kid next door. It's not so easy to dig up items to report on about the one who's just the guy next door. At least not things that will attract and hold the public interest.

JMO