Dellen Millard: Innocent Dupe? Alternative Theories

[Juballee]

The actions/conduct of the accused at time of arrest necessarily includes his relevant state of mind. As such, his conduct and actions, up to and including an omission or admission of guilt are admissible and generally always initially presented in Court by the Prosecuting Attorney or Crown.

It is almost impossible to "tell" the story in a courtroom of the investigation and arrest without uttering words about the accused's statement and reactions to arrest.

It is usually important to establish what the reaction to the evidence was when the defendant was questioned. It's revealing as determining relevant mindset and as we all know very telling when someone is confronted with evidence and their initial reaction.
This is true whether the reaction was because they are innocent or guilty.

I can't imagine the initial questioning and/or accused's statement wouldn't be included in court, whether he did or didn't do it.

Likely won't matter anyway. He and DP are probably doing the same thing as MS and his lawyer.....gaging the odds of a plea and selling the co-accused out vs. gambling on a jury returning a not guilty verdict.

I would think that an officer's testimony about their personal interpretation of a suspect's state of mind would hold less weight than a confession or denial. After all, that officer was not inside the suspect's head and not actually privy to what state their mind might have been in. And unless that officer is familiar with that particular person's normal reactions to certain situations as a control, how can they judge whether or not those reactions are normal for this suspect? For example, when a suspect in interrogation is told by police that they have something incriminating, and the suspect's state of mind appears to be disbelief and shock, how is the officer to know if the shock is because they are guilty and are shocked that such evidence was found, or if they are an innocent person shocked that there is evidence that may falsely convict them?

In this case one defendant was apparently arrested without incident and withstood 24 hours of intense interrogation without incriminating himself, how are the prosecutors going to use that to build their case for the jury? And how will that look for the defendant who had to be chased down by a tactical team?

 

[Archangel7]

I would think that an officer's testimony about their personal interpretation of a suspect's state of mind would hold less weight than a confession or denial. After all, that officer was not inside the suspect's head and not actually privy to what state their mind might have been in. And unless that officer is familiar with that particular person's normal reactions to certain situations as a control, how can they judge whether or not those reactions are normal for this suspect? For example, when a suspect in interrogation is told by police that they have something incriminating, and the suspect's state of mind appears to be disbelief and shock, how is the officer to know if the shock is because they are guilty and are shocked that such evidence was found, or if they are an innocent person shocked that there is evidence that may falsely convict them?

In this case one defendant was apparently arrested without incident and withstood 24 hours of intense interrogation without incriminating himself, how are the prosecutors going to use that to build their case for the jury? And how will that look for the defendant who had to be chased down by a tactical team?

bbm

You'd be incorrect and it's not the opinion of anyone. The officer/investigator you refer to would be stating the facts of the arrest including demeanor, reaction, what the accused said etc. Then the same sequence likely with the subsequent investigator as to what he hears/observed during formal questioning.

The jury would then determine/interpret as they please.

I read nothing into the difference in arrest.....I've lived in Ontario long enough to realize they roll a SWAT team for a kid with a airsoft.

The point is about what the relevant state of mind is or was at the time of arrest and at the formal questioning along with any statements made or clues given towards determining culpability or not.

I can't explain it any clearer.

 

[robynhood]

bbm

You'd be incorrect and it's not the opinion of anyone. The officer/investigator you refer to would be stating the facts of the arrest including demeanor, reaction, what the accused said etc. Then the same sequence likely with the subsequent investigator as to what he hears/observed during formal questioning.

The jury would then determine/interpret as they please.

I read nothing into the difference in arrest.....I've lived in Ontario long enough to realize they roll a SWAT team for a kid with a airsoft.

The point is about what the relevant state of mind is or was at the time of arrest and at the formal questioning along with any statements made or clues given towards determining culpability or not.

I can't explain it any clearer.

JMO but I MUST comment to you Archangel..I think you have done an excellent job here at explaining our Ont laws...! I will restate this is my opinion and I believe you have gone to GREAT extent at making yourself extremely clear...to us all...a job well done and I must thank you...robynhood...!..As a professional ..teacher it is not always easy to do this to ppl not involved in your profession....I am sure you are an Amazing Police officer too...again JMO!

 

[Juballee]

JMO but I MUST comment to you Archangel..I think you have done an excellent job here at explaining our Ont laws...! I will restate this is my opinion and I believe you have gone to GREAT extent at making yourself extremely clear...to us all...a job well done and I must thank you...robynhood...!..As a professional ..teacher it is not always easy to do this to ppl not involved in your profession....I am sure you are an Amazing Police officer too...again JMO!

I actually thought that as a teacher you may have taken acception to this poster's previous statement that teachers are too liberal to serve on juries. Do you find that the people in your profession should not be relied upon to be open minded jurors? Or would you perhaps argue that teachers and other highly educated professionals would be a welcome addition to a jury? I would be interested to hear the opinions of someone in one of the professions listed as being laughed at by prosecutors for jury selection, if you think that this is a fair assessment of your particular profession or not.

Any prosecuting attorney that allows a preacher(forgiveness/never too late to rehabilitate) a teacher(too liberal and sympathetic) and doctors(treat not prosecute) in a juror pool is asleep at the wheel. It's even joked about in certain circles about who to dismiss on the first cut.

 

[Juballee]

bbm

You'd be incorrect and it's not the opinion of anyone. The officer/investigator you refer to would be stating the facts of the arrest including demeanor, reaction, what the accused said etc. Then the same sequence likely with the subsequent investigator as to what he hears/observed during formal questioning.

The jury would then determine/interpret as they please.

I read nothing into the difference in arrest.....I've lived in Ontario long enough to realize they roll a SWAT team for a kid with a airsoft.

The point is about what the relevant state of mind is or was at the time of arrest and at the formal questioning along with any statements made or clues given towards determining culpability or not.

I can't explain it any clearer.

If I am incorrect when suggesting that an officer's personal interpretation of a suspect's state of mind would hold less weight than an confession or denial, then why ever bother trying to get a confession? All LE would have to do would be to show a suspect their actual evidence and then try to judge their reactions, and then that would be more valuable in court than any confession, by your explanation above. And since LE go into the interrogation thinking the suspect is guilty (otherwise why would they be interrogating them?), is it not possible that their preconceived notions might perhaps colour their opinions on whether or not the look of surprize is because the suspect is caught or because they are framed, for example?

The actions/conduct of the accused at time of arrest necessarily includes his relevant state of mind. As such, his conduct and actions, up to and including an omission or admission of guilt are admissible and generally always initially presented in Court by the Prosecuting Attorney or Crown.

It is almost impossible to "tell" the story in a courtroom of the investigation and arrest without uttering words about the accused's statement and reactions to arrest.

Rsbm

It seems to be implying in this earlier post that the actions of the accused at the time of arrest will come into play in the courtroom, yet it seems to imply in the post above that you do not think the fact that one ran and put up a fight while one was peacefully arrested will make a difference in court. If an officer's opinions of a suspect's state of mind during questioning is relevant, wouldn't their interpretation of the defendant's state of mind at the time of arrest also be relevant? And wouldn't that possible state of mind be interpreted differently if the suspects showed pretty much the exact opposite behaviour at the time of arrest?

 

[Sillybilly]

I actually thought that as a teacher you may have taken acception to this poster's previous statement that teachers are too liberal to serve on juries. Do you find that the people in your profession should not be relied upon to be open minded jurors? Or would you perhaps argue that teachers and other highly educated professionals would be a welcome addition to a jury? I would be interested to hear the opinions of someone in one of the professions listed as being laughed at by prosecutors for jury selection, if you think that this is a fair assessment of your particular profession or not.

Jumping off your post ..

A potential juror has to meet the jury selection criterion established to determine if they are either a good prosecution OR defense juror. Regardless of what the profession is, the professional's opinion or public opinion doesn't factor into the process.

It's an equal opportunity process .. whether defense or prosecution, it's about choosing jurors you feel support your side of the case. Both sides have a kick at the can, and while the prosecution may feel a certain profession is too liberal, the defence may feel that a potential juror is too conservative. That's what the selection process is all about ... with decisions based on the unique circumstances of the case at hand and with both sides having a choice in the matter until a jury of 12 good peeps has been selected.

So, "fair assessment" depends on which side is making the assessment in a given situation.

 

[Sillybilly]

the fact that one ran and put up a fight while one was peacefully arrested will make a difference in court

<rs&bbm>

Do you have link for that?

I don't see anything to indicate he put up a fight when arrested:

from:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/2nd-suspect-named-in-tim-bosma-slaying-1.1329948

Smich was arrested while walking near Dorval Drive and Wyecroft Road in Oakville this morning.

from:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...arrested-in-tim-bosma-disappearance-1.1323652

Dellen Millard was arrested while driving on Cawthra Road in Mississauga

I don't think we know precisely how either takedown occurred, and media articles are short on specifics and don't seem to indicate much difference other than one was walking and the other was driving.

 

[cansleuther]

A 10-person tactical team entered MS's home and (possibly) used tear gas to flush him out:

Neighbour Stephania Capeloa, who lives across the street, said she saw a 10-person tactical team barge through the front door of Smich's home.

Capeloa said officers used what looked like tear gas.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2882879-oakville-man-arrested-in-tim-bosma-murder/

 

[Archangel7]

If I am incorrect when suggesting that an officer's personal interpretation of a suspect's state of mind would hold less weight than an confession or denial, then why ever bother trying to get a confession? All LE would have to do would be to show a suspect their actual evidence and then try to judge their reactions, and then that would be more valuable in court than any confession, by your explanation above. And since LE go into the interrogation thinking the suspect is guilty (otherwise why would they be interrogating them?), is it not possible that their preconceived notions might perhaps colour their opinions on whether or not the look of surprize is because the suspect is caught or because they are framed, for example?




Rsbm

It seems to be implying in this earlier post that the actions of the accused at the time of arrest will come into play in the courtroom, yet it seems to imply in the post above that you do not think the fact that one ran and put up a fight while one was peacefully arrested will make a difference in court. If an officer's opinions of a suspect's state of mind during questioning is relevant, wouldn't their interpretation of the defendant's state of mind at the time of arrest also be relevant? And wouldn't that possible state of mind be interpreted differently if the suspects showed pretty much the exact opposite behaviour at the time of arrest?

One of my points is this...I personally find it disgusting, unprofessional and laughable wrt the way SWAT is used here based on reported historical media events of overwhelming force. As a SWAT/Hard entry Team prior member, it embarrasses me to watch LE here in ON roll on petty calls.
So I don't, and one(YOU) shouldn't read a lot into their swatting a fly with a bunker buster. I know of no resistance in either arrest.
I can tell you from experience, if there was any resistance in a murder 1 SWAT takedown, LE are in serious jeopardy and woefully untrained.

My second point was and still is(perhaps my words are not being comprehended) that the LE IS NOT INTERPRETING ANYTHING. They are "testifying" to or answering a direct question under oath as to what transpired during arrest and questioning. The Jury will decide what they feel about what LE's testimony means to them.

Is that more understandable?

ETA.....Jubalee, it's seems you may be confusing an officer's retelling of the facts/events of the arrest and or initial questioning with offering his personal opinion on what he personally feels. Not impossible, but nearly as he is required to speak Under Oath and as the CROWN or "STATE" or "GOVERNMENT of CANADA Representative."

 

[Sillybilly]

A 10-person tactical team entered MS's home and (possibly) used tear gas to flush him out:



http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2882879-oakville-man-arrested-in-tim-bosma-murder/

Dunno ... gotta love the media, eh? The article I linked to indicates they entered the house AFTER Smich was arrested:

Shortly after the arrest, police moved in on a home in Oakville owned by Maria Smich-Grygorcewicz on Montrose Abbey Drive. Hamilton police confirmed the search at that address was related to the Bosma case.

ETA: FWIW, I don't believe we know how many LE (and whether regular or specialized units) were involved in stopping DM while he drove on Cawthra.

 

[Sillybilly]

A 10-person tactical team entered MS's home and (possibly) used tear gas to flush him out:



http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2882879-oakville-man-arrested-in-tim-bosma-murder/

:waitasec:That same neighbour also said:

from:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/2nd-suspect-named-in-tim-bosma-slaying-1.1329948

Stefania Capelo, who lives across the street, said she saw police crews investigate the home mid-morning on Wednesday.

"It was a really surreal thing. It happened very quickly and I just kind of watched from my front door. It wasn't a big show, if that's what you're asking."

I would imagine the larger presence in Smich's case was based on a combination of his history and LE not knowing for sure how many people may have been inside the house. In DM's case, they likely knew he was alone in his vehicle, thus no big hoopla. JMO

 

[robynhood]

I actually thought that as a teacher you may have taken acception to this poster's previous statement that teachers are too liberal to serve on juries. Do you find that the people in your profession should not be relied upon to be open minded jurors? Or would you perhaps argue that teachers and other highly educated professionals would be a welcome addition to a jury? I would be interested to hear the opinions of someone in one of the professions listed as being laughed at by prosecutors for jury selection, if you think that this is a fair assessment of your particular profession or not.

<modsnip>

I was asked to be on a jury !...several of my friends/teacher were on juries...so where is this coming from???....robynhood!

 

[Sillybilly]

<modsnip>

I was asked to be on a jury !...several of my friends/teacher were on juries...so where is this coming from???....robynhood!

Don't take it personally robyn. It's really all just a shot in the dark anyway. Just generally, the Crown/prosecution doesn't lean toward the helping professions who might be more liberal in their thoughts towards the accused. Here's a good read on the process in Canada and how the respective lawyers might view the prospective jurors:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2008/10/14/the_inexact_art_of_jury_selection.html

Some Crowns avoid teachers and people in the helping professions, like social workers, who might have dealt with people with criminal pasts, he says. He doesn't subscribe to that theory but admits he avoids roofers and tow truck drivers out of fear they may have shady associates.

from that same article:

Lennox doesn't understand why some Crowns reject teachers.

"I had three teachers on my last jury, one of them retired, the other the jury foreperson." The jury convicted the accused of cocaine trafficking. "The bottom line is looks can be deceiving."

 

[Sillybilly]

From that same article ^^:

But normally the Crown and defence lawyers only know the candidate's name, area of residence and profession as they pick 12 jurors out of groups of 60 to possibly 400 prospects

Name and residence are a given, so the only thing that can really be analyzed by either Crown or defence is how the profession MIGHT factor into how a jury will interpret evidence. There's no exact science involved, and it really comes down to the individual lawyer's beliefs and experiences in the field.

 

[Archangel7]

Correct Sillybilly.

It comes down to each (Crown and Defense) trying to "stack the jury" or looking at it from another angle, at least keeping the other side from having an advantage.

 

[robynhood]

thanks silly billy...I am truly rol....I was on a jury ...so teachers are on ...and I do not take anything personal....no worries....truth is truth...facts can never be changed...and I am not posting all this over and over again....master in sp ed...I know the game...smile robynhood...the tweeting robyn....ha h ha ha...

 

[robynhood]

SB remember....http://youtu.be/ZaM4K70suHM...robynhood...my pleasure....

 

[Alethea Dice]

<modsnip>

I was asked to be on a jury !...several of my friends/teacher were on juries...so where is this coming from???....robynhood!

Just to set the record straight, robynhood, it wasn't Juballee who said that teachers couldn't be on a jury or that they aren't wanted on a jury. I think maybe you misread his/her post.

HTH

 

[Alethea Dice]

:waitasec:That same neighbour also said:

from:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/2nd-suspect-named-in-tim-bosma-slaying-1.1329948



I would imagine the larger presence in Smich's case was based on a combination of his history and LE not knowing for sure how many people may have been inside the house. In DM's case, they likely knew he was alone in his vehicle, thus no big hoopla. JMO

I think you're probably right that it was partly MS's history that warranted the larger presence. But still, from your links, we do know that DM was arrested "without incident". And that a force of LE arrived at MS's house with guns drawn, according to the neighbor and I'm sure we all remember the pictures with the guns and bullet proof vests. That still says to me that MS's history told LE that violence was a possibility. We heard nothing about them even calling for backup when DM was arrested, just that he was followed for a few hours and arrested without incident. There didn't seem to be any fear that he would jump out of his vehicle with a gun or anything. Which brings us back to the unanswered question of why people would assume that DM was the "leader" in what happened.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

Deepak Paradkar, Mr. Millard’s lawyer, said his client attended court in person on a judge’s order because of a technicality: Police hadn’t obtained his fingerprints for the murder charge, but rather for an earlier forcible confinement charge, and the Crown wanted to rectify the oversight.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...families-of-homicide-victims/article13545420/

I know we discussed this before, but I can't remember if anyone ever knew the answer. Why would DM need to be fingerprinted again for the murder charge when they would have gotten his fingerprints on the unlawful confinement charge? Is there a reason why separate fingerprints would be needed for each charge?