Jailhouse Interview September 11, 2013

[Alethea Dice]

Funny you see it that way. I see it as trying extremely hard to eliminate any possible, remote chance, that they could have the wrong guys.

So far no bail, what, twice for DM? The first was obviously turned down the Wed. after the trailer was found. No matter, he is apparently so guilty even his Counsel won't seek bail again for him.......:floorlaugh:

I believe the timing was May 14th

..........Millard is scheduled for a bail hearing Wednesday morning with deputy Crown attorney Tony Leitch................

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

There was no "bail hearing". Instead .....

May 15, 2013: Millard is formally charged with first-degree murder. He was ordered detained until a bail hearing can be arranged, and will appear again by video remand on June 13.

http://globalnews.ca/news/560553/tim-bosma-a-timeline-of-the-police-investigation/

If TB's body had not been found, then there would have been no murder charge and there likely would have been a bail hearing. The murder charge changed everything.

And now there won't be a bail hearing at all.

HTH

 

[Archangel7]

There was no "bail hearing". Instead .....



http://globalnews.ca/news/560553/tim-bosma-a-timeline-of-the-police-investigation/

If TB's body had not been found, then there would have been no murder charge and there likely would have been a bail hearing. The murder charge changed everything.

And now there won't be a bail hearing at all.

HTH

The link was posted. The reported wrote what he wrote and DP said what he said, DM was scheduled for a bail hearing Wed. as reported by the link.

You right though, there won't be any bail.

 

[Alethea Dice]

The link was posted. The reported wrote what he wrote and DP said what he said, DM was scheduled for a bail hearing Wed. as reported by the link.

You right though, there won't be any bail.

Yup, you're right. The link was posted for what happened in court. He was ordered detained until a bail hearing could be arranged. Bail hearings aren't automatic for a murder charge like they are for forcible confinement and theft.

HTH

 

[Archangel7]

Yup, you're right. The link was posted for what happened in court. He was ordered detained until a bail hearing could be arranged. Bail hearings aren't automatic for a murder charge like they are for forcible confinement and theft.

HTH

AD, is he out on bail? And yes I realize he has no hope for bail, DP knows it and DP been behind since the arrest. No wonder he won't seek.

 

[Sillybilly]

Yup, you're right. The link was posted for what happened in court. He was ordered detained until a bail hearing could be arranged. Bail hearings aren't automatic for a murder charge like they are for forcible confinement and theft.
HTH

Do you have a link for that AD?

I thought everyone was entitled to a bail hearing, just that in the case of murder (and some other charges), the onus is on the accused to show cause as to why it should be granted. IOW, IF the accused requests a bail hearing, they must be granted one, just with reverse onus.

Thanks !!

 

[Alethea Dice]

Do you have a link for that AD?

I thought everyone was entitled to a bail hearing, just that in the case of murder (and some other charges), the onus is on the accused to show cause as to why it should be granted. IOW, IF the accused requests a bail hearing, they must be granted one, just with reverse onus.

Thanks !!

I posted one quite some time ago. I will look for it again.

 

[Blomquist]

No a first would be an non sleazy criminal D. attorney.

I have some extremely nice friends who are lawyers and I can assure you that some are far from sleazy. ..and coming from someone who has very little faith in the justice system you can believe that I was very dubious.

Just because some lawyers can see through some of the BS in cases doesn`t make them sleazy. There is corruption throughout the whole `system` so to pinpoint just lawyers and then claim the rest are saints is crazy imo

 

[Archangel7]

I have some extremely nice friends who are lawyers and I can assure you that some are far from sleazy. ..and coming from someone who has very little faith in the justice system you can believe that I was very dubious.

Just because some lawyers can see through some of the BS in cases doesn`t make them sleazy. There is corruption throughout the whole `system` so to pinpoint just lawyers and then claim the rest are saints is crazy imo

bbm
You misread what I wrote. I didn't say lawyers are sleazy. In fact I never used the word lawyer in the post you misread.

 

[Arnie M]

Do you have a link for that AD?

I thought everyone was entitled to a bail hearing, just that in the case of murder (and some other charges), the onus is on the accused to show cause as to why it should be granted. IOW, IF the accused requests a bail hearing, they must be granted one, just with reverse onus.
Thanks !!

Anyone can apply for bail , it is decided by a judge , the applicant (in this case DM & his lawyer) go in front of the judge and present all the reasons society "would be safe" if the applicant is released ... and "reassurance'' the applicant will appear whenever summoned back to court (not skip the country etc)

Trouble is , a prosecutor can then present all the reasons why it would be unwise for him to be released.

That is what DM's team are avoiding by not trying to get bail .... and there must be good reasons . (incrimination)

 

[Sillybilly]

Anyone can apply for bail , it is decided by a judge , the applicant (in this case DM & his lawyer) go in front of the judge and present all the reasons society "would be safe" if the applicant is released ... and "reassurance'' the applicant will appear whenever summoned back to court (not skip the country etc)

Trouble is , a prosecutor can then present all the reasons why it would be unwise for him to be released.

That is what DM's team are avoiding by not trying to get bail .... and there must be good reasons . (incrimination)

I get all that, and that has always been my understanding. AD had indicated otherwise however, so I asked if AD could provide a link in that regard.

Thanks !!

 

[Blomquist]

bbm
You misread what I wrote. I didn't say lawyers are sleazy. In fact I never used the word lawyer in the post you misread.

Attorney:

A person admitted to practice law in at least one jurisdiction and authorized to perform criminal and civil legal functions on behalf of clients. These functions include providing legal counsel, drafting legal documents, and representing clients before courts, administrative agencies, and other tribunals.

Unless a contrary meaning is plainly indicated this term is synonymous with "attorney at law,""lawyer," or "counselor at law."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Attorney

I did not misread...perhaps you misunderstood

When you say a non sleazy Criminal Defense Attorney (lawyer) would be a first..it implies that all Crim Def Attorneys (Lawyers) are sleazy.... imo

 

[Blomquist]

Anyone can apply for bail , it is decided by a judge , the applicant (in this case DM & his lawyer) go in front of the judge and present all the reasons society "would be safe" if the applicant is released ... and "reassurance'' the applicant will appear whenever summoned back to court (not skip the country etc)

Trouble is , a prosecutor can then present all the reasons why it would be unwise for him to be released.

That is what DM's team are avoiding by not trying to get bail .... and there must be good reasons . (incrimination)

Yes

Prosecution can present `findings` whether they are factual as incriminating the accused or not....so long as they attribute the findings to the accused and thus create the impression that they have the right guy.
The judge usually takes the word of the prosecution at this stage of the game.... no presumption of innocence in the building where it is supposed to be paramount. .... unfortunately. (Unless of course your name is Forcillo).

IMO the trail of breadcrumbs (that to some of us looks like a deliberate frame up) is being used as the reason and until the rest of the story is unveiled they have to go with all they have.... even if there is a lot more.

 

[Sillybilly]

Yes

Prosecution can present `findings` whether they are factual as incriminating the accused or not....so long as they attribute the findings to the accused and thus create the impression that they have the right guy.
The judge usually takes the word of the prosecution at this stage of the game.... no presumption of innocence in the building where it is supposed to be paramount. .... unfortunately. (Unless of course your name is Forcillo).

IMO the trail of breadcrumbs (that to some of us looks like a deliberate frame up) is being used as the reason and until the rest of the story is unveiled they have to go with all they have.... even if there is a lot more.

So with reverse onus on the accused to show why they should be granted bail, why is it the defence is not able to come up with their own "findings" that trump the prosecution's finding, in order to convince a judge? Somebody has to have the better findings.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Do you have a link for that AD?

I thought everyone was entitled to a bail hearing, just that in the case of murder (and some other charges), the onus is on the accused to show cause as to why it should be granted. IOW, IF the accused requests a bail hearing, they must be granted one, just with reverse onus.

Thanks !!

Sorry, got called away.

Anyone can apply for bail, but with murder you don't automatically get a bail hearing. Rather, you are automatically detained in custody and must apply to the Superior Court for a hearing and reverse onus applies.

For certain specific offences, the Criminal Code provides in subsections 515(6) and 515(11) that the accused is to be detained during the proceedings. The accused may, however, be released if he or she proves that detention is not justified in the circumstances. The burden is shifted from the prosecutor to the accused, if the accused is charged with one of the following offences:
■an offence listed in section 469 of the Code (including murder);(29)

http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?ls=c35&Parl=39&Ses=1

Certain other offences, including murder, judicial corruption and certain crimes against humanity are treated separately and are subject to a reverse onus. For these offences, section 522 of the Criminal Code states that the accused is automatically detained in custody unless he or she demonstrates, following a hearing before a superior court judge, that the detention is not justified.

http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/china_ccprcp/files/Presentations%20and%20Publications/03%20Bail%20Law%20in%20Canada_English.pdf

I remember that DP mentioned this in one of his interviews as well, but hopefully I won't need to search for that as well.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Seriously, I don't think they want to present their findings at a bail hearing. That would be like having two trials. They just want to prove whether or not they should be granted or denied bail. In DM's case, he has a passport and aircraft, it's a very serious offense and he's looking at a very long sentence. The crown would easily argue that he's a flight risk and bail would be denied.

JMO

 

[Sillybilly]

I remember that DP mentioned this in one of his interviews as well, but hopefully I won't need to search for that as well.

<rsbm>

So sorry for the inconvenience, but you had stated that "Bail hearings aren't automatic for a murder charge like they are for forcible confinement and theft."

They aren't automatic for anyone; they must be applied for, and are able to be applied for by all accused, whether it be for murder, forcible confinement, etc.

We are all entitled to ask for a link when we are questioning a claim made by another poster.

 

[Alethea Dice]

So sorry for the inconvenience, but you had stated that "Bail hearings aren't automatic for a murder charge like they are for forcible confinement and theft."

They aren't automatic for anyone; they must be applied for, and are able to be applied for by all accused, whether it be for murder, forcible confinement, etc.

We are all entitled to ask for a link when we make a claim that others are questioning.

And I provided a link, two in fact. I simply wasn't up to searching for a third. I have also asked others for links and usually been ignored, but out of respect I did provide them, as I usually do. No offense intended in either my previous post or this one.

I have to disagree with you, however, that bail hearings aren't automatic for lesser crimes.

After a person is arrested, he or she may be released pending the first court date, or may be kept in custody. If kept in custody, the accused must be brought before a justice within 24 hours at which time the accused will have a bail hearing before a justice, or for certain more serious charges a detention order will be made after which the accused can apply for a bail hearing before a judge.

http://www.fightthecharges.com/bail/

HTH

 

[Blomquist]

So with reverse onus on the accused to show why they should be granted bail, why is it the defence is not able to come up with their own "findings" that trump the prosecution's finding, in order to convince a judge? Somebody has to have the better findings.

IMO It doesn`t work like that because the defense does not want to show their cards at this stage of the game. The defense will wait until the prosecution shows their hand (disclosure). ...and if they (defense)were to show any ace cards they may have at this stage and the case still proceeds to trial then they have revealed their hand. Even if they have lots of evidence that shows the accused to be innocent they cannot divulge it if it would mean that the prosecution will try to `twist it` or if it give the prosecution some info they can use to their advantage (regardless of whether it is particularly valuable to them.... all the prosecution is trying to do is muddy the water if they cannot put the accused at the crime scene... So the defense plays the same way... it needs to muddy the water for the prosecution.... and ultimately the jury decides which side is muddier.... JMO

For example...the prosecution may feel they have the bigger puddle.... but is that puddle muddier than what the defense has or vice versa..

A defense case needs to be built upon as solid a base as possible....there will be strong factors and weakers factors. Why show what you have...when the onus is on the prosecution to prove you guilty.

If a witness is brought in, that witness can be questioned by both defense and prosecution.... and if your fate is in the hands of a witness or two, why release that info now....

not sure I am making sense...tired... fftobed:

 

[Lili25]

I thought that bail hearings address the seriousness of the charges and the risk of the suspect evading those charges as well as being a risk to the public .....or a certain person. I have experienced this from a victim point of view (and I hate word victim because I survived) and his lawyer never asked for bail because they knew that everyday served counts for 2 at sentencing....victim services and detectives told me that it is in the best interest for some to stay in jail in terms of their future court hearings and sentencing...

 

[Blomquist]

Actually, it certainly wouldn't be a first. That is exactly what happened in the Audrey Gleave case when DLS was originally charged with her murder and incarcerated. As soon as forensic evidence was not conclusive, charges were withdrawn and he was a free man.

Well I do believe that the case was rather different.... but as in any case where a search or searches produce nothing they dont have a lot to go on do they really .....

Which brings me back to this case..... so far fruitless searches.... must be getting desperate... with the pretrial looming and all.... jmo