General Discussion and Theories #4

[swedie]

I think the key word is allege the word immediately before the words that were bolded in the post. JMO

Because it hasn't been proven in a court of law, of course the word allege is going to be used by reporters and publishers. IMO that's just common sense and likely the number one rule when it comes to reporting/publishing pretrial. After the verdict of guilty is given by the jury, everyone can drop those verbs. Could you only imagine the lawsuits reporters and media outlets would be facing if they didn't include verbs such as allege, believe, suggest, suspect, assume? MOO :slap: :bang: :lol:

 

[swedie]

We can all come up with a billion and one excuses to convict an accused before a fair trial too ! No-one can say that the two in jail are wicked criminals with warped minds until a fair trial has been had. IMO. No-one has any idea what was or wasn't 'planned'. There is no proof that either is stupid either until we get the facts. Repeating that the AG saw fit to bring a DI does nothing to prove absolute guilt. It has been said several times before that 'time restraints' are very often the reason for DI. Compounded by the fact that two have been in jail for going in three years. One has been isolated.. I don't believe I shall be reading and weeping based on what little is known so far. All JMO and IMHO





Again ... there are TWO people sitting in jail fro what is now going on THREE years. That is a charter violation in the making. IMO that is why there are DI's. We can repeat and repeat that accused are sick, twisted, less than human, wicked and warped all we like. But the fact is, until there is a fair trial that is all guess work. Even then IF there was a conviction, there is no proof that said accused are sick, twisted, less than human, wicked and warped. Until we know what transpired it is easy to throw even more accusations at them, instead of trying to be rational and think from a neutral viewpoint, like jurors are expected to do before being shown any evidence or lack of. Again JMHO.



I know someone who murdered their own father and let me tell you, he had every right to in the circumstance. The courts also agreed. This son was not disgusting or disturbing I can assure you. It's obviously easy for people to decide about people based on their own perceptions.

In this case I do not believe for one minute that WM was killed by his son. If it was not suicide I believe he was bumped off by someone other than his son. Suicide is still a high possibility in my opinion. MOO



Opinions often do count in the court of public opinion and when accused are flogged on websites as being sick, twisted, less than human, wicked and warped, one can only hope that potential jurors are not swayed by such opinions. All MOO



She has to say that. She cant say otherwise if they are out to get a conviction IMHO.

Seriously? :notgood: May I suggest you read up on what the AG's roles and responsibilities are. It's not about winning a conviction, it's about justice. I can give you this for starters and HTH. MOO.

An important part of the Crown's and thus the Attorney General's responsibility in conducting criminal prosecutions is associated with the responsibility to represent the public interest which includes not only the community as a whole and the victim, but also the accused. The Crown has a distinct responsibility to the court to present all the credible evidence available.

Oops I only read the bold sentence of your above post before commenting, but after posting, something further up in your post caught my eye, this: Again ... there are TWO people sitting in jail fro what is now going on THREE years. That is a charter violation in the making. My response, it's not a charter violation. Be patient, wait and see. You'll see by way of the overwhelming evidence which was collected there is no violation. And when the verdict is decided, justice will prevail. When sentences handed down, it will be victory. MOO.

 

[Tamarind]

[/B]

Seriously? :notgood: May I suggest you read up on what the AG's roles and responsibilities are. It's not about winning a conviction, it's about justice. I can give you this for starters and HTH. MOO.

An important part of the Crown's and thus the Attorney General's responsibility in conducting criminal prosecutions is associated with the responsibility to represent the public interest which includes not only the community as a whole and the victim, but also the accused. The Crown has a distinct responsibility to the court to present all the credible evidence available.

Oops I only read the bold sentence of your above post before commenting, but after posting, something further up in your post caught my eye, this: Again ... there are TWO people sitting in jail fro what is now going on THREE years. That is a charter violation in the making. My response, it's not a charter violation. Be patient, wait and see. You'll see by way of the overwhelming evidence which was collected there is no violation. And when the verdict is decided, justice will prevail. When sentences handed down, it will be victory. MOO.

I actually said that the time restraints are what are a charter violation in the making. Many cases have been tossed when almost 3 years of time have elapsed. A right to a speedy trial is what I was referring to. It is only because they have added more to the case or rather added more cases, that it can be considered a more complex case. In my opinion it should have been straightforward. It is interesting to me that the added cases have caused a section 11b to be avoided.

We shall see about what will be a victory or not. The AG nor Crown shows any support to an accused when you watch a court proceeding. In fact I have seen blatant disregard for an accused. I have seen a Crown threaten/lie to an accused to gain ground. I could expand, but I don't think my witnessing these things will have any impact. I can't see how a crown prosecution service has the accused s best interests at heart. This is my own opinion.

 

[Tamarind]

Because it hasn't been proven in a court of law, of course the word allege is going to be used by reporters and publishers. IMO that's just common sense and likely the number one rule when it comes to reporting/publishing pretrial. After the verdict of guilty is given by the jury, everyone can drop those verbs. Could you only imagine the lawsuits reporters and media outlets would be facing if they didn't include verbs such as allege, believe, suggest, suspect, assume? MOO :slap: :bang: :lol:

Right - Because it hasn't been proven in a court of law

That is the reason. This means it may not be proven in a court of law. The word allege is not a courtesy word. It is used 'Because it hasn't been proven in a court of law'. HTH

 

[SnooperDuper]

I actually said that the time restraints are what are a charter violation in the making. Many cases have been tossed when almost 3 years of time have elapsed. A right to a speedy trial is what I was referring to. It is only because they have added more to the case or rather added more cases, that it can be considered a more complex case. In my opinion it should have been straightforward. It is interesting to me that the added cases have caused a section 11b to be avoided.

No, it is entirely normal for a murder case to take 3 years to get to trial. They are not going to throw a case out just because it takes the normal amount of time a murder case takes to get to trial.

I do think it's quite funny that supporters keep on bringing the wait up, though.

 

[Tamarind]

No, it is entirely normal for a murder case to take 3 years to get to trial. They are not going to throw a case out just because it takes the normal amount of time a murder case takes to get to trial.

I do think it's quite funny that supporters keep on bringing the wait up, though.

I don't see anything funny. I didn't say they were going to throw it out either. I said time restraints are reasons for DI's. If there had been preliminary hearings this case would have gone way over three years. This would have taken over the normal time for murder trials, as you said !

 

[SnooperDuper]

I don't see anything funny. I didn't say they were going to throw it out either. I said time restraints are reasons for DI's. If there had been preliminary hearings this case would have gone way over three years. This would have taken over the normal time for murder trials, as you said !

You said, "I actually said that the time restraints are what are a charter violation in the making. Many cases have been tossed when almost 3 years of time have elapsed. A right to a speedy trial is what I was referring to."

...and that's bunk, there has been no delay or violation, it's just grasping at straws and hoping against all odds that DM will get off.

Not going to happen.

 

[Tamarind]

You said, "I actually said that the time restraints are what are a charter violation in the making. Many cases have been tossed when almost 3 years of time have elapsed. A right to a speedy trial is what I was referring to."

...and that's bunk, there has been no delay or violation, it's just grasping at straws and hoping against all odds that DM will get off.

Not going to happen.

No it's truth. Preliminary hearings would have tipped the scale and taken the wait to four years IMO. Here's a case where a guy was charged because of an anonymous? phone call.

http://www.lfpress.com/2015/10/28/my-life-is-ruined

Charges eventually dropped when they decide a witness may not be credible. Thats a long time to decide that while someone languishes in a jail cell. Proof positive that charges are laid without sufficient evidence to support them, and based on hearsay and non credible witnesses. So much for them needing strong evidence to lay charges. Simply not true MOO

 

[Arnie M]

.

We have never heard DM or MS complain about not getting a speedy trial.

Somebody is inventing a controversy that does not exist.

.

 

[Tamarind]

.

We have never heard DM or MS complain about not getting a speedy trial.

Somebody is inventing a controversy that does not exist.

.

No, no-one has said anything about it being a controversy. All that was said is that DI's are often due to time restraints. IMO. I am not sure why this train is on the tracks as a controversy. The point was that without a preliminary hearing (s) the time overall is less. Going straight to trial eradicates the time that would have been involved for prelims. Thats all. HTH. I won't be continuing to clarify, as I think it's been made clear enough . TIA

I actually said that the time restraints are what are a charter violation in the making.

RSBM- I said time restraints are reasons for DI's. If there had been preliminary hearings this case would have gone way over three years. This would have taken over the normal time for murder trials, as you said !

And yes, time is a factor in DI's as has been addressed quite a few times on here.

 

[SnooperDuper]

.

We have never heard DM or MS complain about not getting a speedy trial.

Somebody is inventing a controversy that does not exist.

.

I know...three years won't even have passed when DM and MS get to trial. They will be at 2 years 10 months then, and certainly not in the running to throw the case out due to time delays.

 

[SnooperDuper]

No it's truth. Preliminary hearings would have tipped the scale and taken the wait to four years IMO. Here's a case where a guy was charged because of an anonymous? phone call.

http://www.lfpress.com/2015/10/28/my-life-is-ruined

Charges eventually dropped when they decide a witness may not be credible. Thats a long time to decide that while someone languishes in a jail cell. Proof positive that charges are laid without sufficient evidence to support them, and based on hearsay and non credible witnesses. So much for them needing strong evidence to lay charges. Simply not true MOO

Uh, this guy spent 8 months in jail, not four years. Part of the reason he was not bailed earlier is that his family would not support him and take him in. What the heck does this have to do with DM?

 

[Tamarind]

Uh, this guy spent 8 months in jail, not four years. Part of the reason he was not bailed earlier is that his family would not support him and take him in. What the heck does this have to do with DM?

Its a general discussion thread. I think it's also obvious how it relates to DM and this case. The reason I added that link was to point out how charges are laid without sufficient evidence to back them up. Sorry I thought it would be obvious, my mistake. Maybe it would have been easier to understand if it had been put in a separate post.

The point is, the guy in the link, should not have needed to be bailed at all as the charges were without sufficient evidence from the beginning. He should never have been charged. It doesn't matter whether he spent nine months in jail or three years, he was charged based on a lack of evidence and if this had gone unnoticed ie. without a bail hearing, he could have been there a lot longer facing a trial. It happens...

 

[Tamarind]

I know...three years won't even have passed when DM and MS get to trial. They will be at 2 years 10 months then, and certainly not in the running to throw the case out due to time delays.

Actually 2 yrs 10 months is definitely in the running for a Section 11b. Especially in some cases and in cases where the crown or the courts have caused unnecessary delays. By going for a DI, it puts things into fast mode and avoids any further delay. There are many cases that have been won on section 11b around the 2yr 10 month time frame. Some are recent. It was also stated by a judge that 18 months should be the guideline. I will find the link for that. Of course when a case gets obfuscated by added charges of another murder, without a body, and a previously ruled suicide suddenly becomes an alleged murder, then that gives more breadth to the acceptable longevity of the proceedings. I find it all quite interesting MOO

 

[SnooperDuper]

[/B]

Its a general discussion thread. I think it's also obvious how it relates to DM and this case. The reason I added that link was to point out how charges are laid without sufficient evidence to back them up. Sorry I thought it would be obvious, my mistake. Maybe it would have been easier to understand if it had been put in a separate post.

The point is, the guy in the link, should not have needed to be bailed at all as the charges were without sufficient evidence from the beginning. He should never have been charged. It doesn't matter whether he spent nine months in jail or three years, he was charged based on a lack of evidence and if this had gone unnoticed ie. without a bail hearing, he could have been there a lot longer facing a trial. It happens...

It was the subject's choice not to be bailed:

He instructed his defence lawyer Jim Zegers to hold off on any bail review. His family, at that point, wasn’t supportive and he had no where to go if he had been released.

Instead, Osman decided to tough it out at the London jail.

His charges were dropped at the preliminary hearing, which is the appropriate time for this.

I still don't see how this relates to DM's case. DM hasn't even asked for bail (not that he has any hope) and has chosen to tough it out in jail too, I guess. DM has gone through the process and if there were any reason to drop charges, they would have done so by now.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Actually 2 yrs 10 months is definitely in the running for a Section 11b. Especially in some cases and in cases where the crown or the courts have caused unnecessary delays. By going for a DI, it puts things into fast mode and avoids any further delay. There are many cases that have been won on section 11b around the 2yr 10 month time frame. Some are recent. It was also stated by a judge that 18 months should be the guideline. I will find the link for that. Of course when a case gets obfuscated by added charges of another murder, without a body, and a previously ruled suicide suddenly becomes an alleged murder, then that gives more breadth to the acceptable longevity of the proceedings. I find it all quite interesting MOO

Yeah, a lot of people get out of traffic tickets using section 11b.

Somehow I think first degree murder is a more serious charge, and the Crown would not throw out these charges frivolously without allowing enough time for both a thorough investigation, full disclosure, and full preparation on behalf of the legal teams.

I think DM's team smacks of desperation if they think he's going to get off on a procedural technicality. I guess it's their only real hope...

 

[SnooperDuper]

Off topic a bit, but DP is neither sick nor out of commission...back to work on another guns and drugs trial...

http://www.mississauga.com/news-sto...nal-gun-and-drug-smuggling-ring-granted-bail/

 

[Tamarind]

It was the subject's choice not to be bailed:



His charges were dropped at the preliminary hearing, which is the appropriate time for this.

I still don't see how this relates to DM's case. DM hasn't even asked for bail (not that he has any hope) and has chosen to tough it out in jail too, I guess. DM has gone through the process and if there were any reason to drop charges, they would have done so by now.

He said not to do a Bail REVIEW. This would be after he had been refused bail already. He could have been bailed on his own recognizance had he had sufficient funds, IF the court agreed. He probably knew it would not be agreed to as there were heavy charges around his neck. Therefore no point in getting a review ( which costs at least $3,000 ) to be told he couldn't be released for some reason. So he obviously stuck it out hoping that justice would prevail and he would get out.

We have no idea whether there are reasons to drop DM/MS charges, when someone is stuck in the system they can't get out that easily, as the link proves. HTH

 

[Tamarind]

Yeah, a lot of people get out of traffic tickets using section 11b.

Somehow I think first degree murder is a more serious charge, and the Crown would not throw out these charges frivolously without allowing enough time for both a thorough investigation, full disclosure, and full preparation on behalf of the legal teams.

I think DM's team smacks of desperation if they think he's going to get off on a procedural technicality. I guess it's their only real hope...

Section 11b applies to ALL charges. It is a CHARTER right. It is not there for the purpose of just traffic court. No-one is suggesting that DM or MS's ( not sure why it's only DM that gets brought up all the time) team are seeking to use Section 11b. The point of raising the issue was to explain an opinion as to why DI''s are in place ! HTH

 

[Tamarind]

It was the subject's choice not to be bailed:

No it wasn't. He said no to a bail RE VIEW

His charges were dropped at the preliminary hearing, which is the appropriate time for this.

Charges that have little credibility should never be laid in the first place IMO. Why should an innocent person have to sit in jail while they try to get enough mud to sling at them to make charges stick?

I still don't see how this relates to DM's case. DM hasn't even asked for bail (not that he has any hope) and has chosen to tough it out in jail too, I guess. DM has gone through the process and if there were any reason to drop charges, they would have done so by now.

It's an adversarial system once someone is locked into it. MOO