Laura Babcock: Dellen Millard & Mark Smich charged w/ Murder in the First Degree #2

[Tamarind]

Not necessarily

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dai...bout-being-on-a-jury-in-canada-204552973.html

The key paragraph for me is this one :

''The unusual thing about this case is that it’s rare for this kind of information to come to light,” MacKinnon says. “I’m sure that jurors in many cases, on a daily or weekly basis, are doing the same thing. However, they’re not telling anyone because they know they’re not supposed to, and therefore it never gets discovered.”

 

[SnooperDuper]

The key paragraph for me is this one :

''The unusual thing about this case is that it’s rare for this kind of information to come to light,” MacKinnon says. “I’m sure that jurors in many cases, on a daily or weekly basis, are doing the same thing. However, they’re not telling anyone because they know they’re not supposed to, and therefore it never gets discovered.”

You're right, that is key.

In the past few weeks parties have lost one Liberal, one Bloc and 6 Conservative candidates for the federal election because of what they posted on social media.

It's a mistake to lie about your social media activities and hope you will not be discovered in this day and age.

 

[Tamarind]

You're right, that is key.

In the past few weeks parties have lost one Liberal, one Bloc and 6 Conservative candidates for the federal election because of what they posted on social media.

It's a mistake to lie about your social media activities and hope you will not be discovered in this day and age.

Can you clarify the point you are trying to make?

Are you directing this to me? If so, please explain why? I am not a juror for this case and if I were a potential one, nothing I have said online indicates anything other than presuming an accused's innocence, which is the right an accused is afforded IMO. I am not one of those who have already got them convicted and ready for the gallows.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Can you clarify the point you are trying to make?

Are you directing this to me? If so, please explain why? I am not a juror for this case and if I were a potential one, nothing I have said online indicates anything other than presuming an accused's innocence, which is the right an accused is afforded IMO. I am not one of those who have already got them convicted and ready for the gallows.

I'm sorry, I'm talking about jurors. Jurors can't be part of discussion groups where they post a certain viewpoint, and claim to be impartial, IMO.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Sorry, but I feel I must correct some apparent misunderstandings of my previous posts.

You have made a lot of incorrect assumptions that I cannot correct due to publication bans. The DI is being used to get these cases to trial. The reasons for the delays will be made clear later on. It is wrong to assume that holding preliminary hearings would have been speedier. You should also keep in mind that "speed" is not the only reason for DIs:



http://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p3/ch06.html

First of all, I haven't made any assumptions (unless you're counting assuming that there will be scientific evidence in the TB case), so I'm not sure how I could have made "a lot of incorrect" ones. I was stating my feelings about why DI's aren't necessarily a good thing. Furthermore, I didn't assume that preliminary hearings would have "been speedier" in getting the case through the system, only that there could be things determined in a preliminary hearing that would save some time during the actual trial. Getting to trial faster may not be the only reason for a DI, but it is usually used in combination with applications for DI's. From your link, circumstances where it could be in the public interest to have a DI, number 4 - "where delay (actual or anticipated) in bringing the matter to trial, has led to the conclusion that the right to trial within a reasonable time..." and number 6 - "where proceedings against the accused ought to be expedited to ensure public confidence...". Also, for LB..

The fast-tracking speeds up the judicial process, can reduce violations of publication bans (which are in place for both the Bosma and Babcock matters), spares witnesses from having to testify twice and the family from having to endure two lengthy hearings.

For TB...

The prosecutors in the Tim Bosma murder trial have taken the unusual step of trying to fast-track the case and go straight to trial.

For MR...

The province has decided to fast-track the trial of the man charged with murdering Tori Stafford, taking the rare step of quashing his preliminary hearing.

For WB...

“This is just the start, but it certainly means that things will probably proceed quicker because they are avoiding the preliminary inquiry at the provincial court,” says Shapray.

My argument was that, even though this is often quoted, I haven't seen any evidence that it speeds up the length of time it takes to get to trial.

It's not odd at all. Just the opposite. The nature of this highly unusual situation with five related cases in two jurisdictions is a large part of why DIs are being used in two cases against the same accused.

Five cases? Or five people charged? We have TB, LB, WM and the weapon case. What is the fifth?

Except you have no idea how long things would have dragged on in any of these cases without DIs.

Just as we have no idea yet how long it will drag on even with the DI. All we know is that, in the case of TB, it is still taking almost 3 years to get to trial.

They had video of Paul Bernardo torturing two girls. What need could there have possibly been for a preliminary hearing? If this wasn't an exceptional situation, then what is? Of what benefit to society would holding a PI have been? Another opportunity to screen the torture tapes? Bernardo wasn't going to plead guilty. He still thinks he should be let out of prison.

I don't know why you're debating the one case that I said probably would not have been affected by skipping the preliminary hearing. But since you mention the "torture tapes", it is interesting, and perhaps important to point out, that the police didn't have those tapes until 6 months after the trial had started. The preferred indictment was announce on March 30, 1994. The trial started on May 4, 1994. The tapes were handed over to the policy on September 24, 1994. So I guess it doesn't make much sense to use the tapes as a reason not to have a preliminary hearing. Notice it only took a year to get to trial 20 years ago. How unfortunate that it now generally takes about 3 years in Ontario.

http://www.canada.com/national/features/homolka/story.html?id=bab9c4c1-d0ac-4bbe-bd54-abdcc4096051

Oh c'mon. That witness's "reliability" had nothing to do with whether there was a preliminary hearing. She's completely mentally damaged and could have just as easily gone off the rails after a PI. Again, there were very good reasons to spare everyone from going through that ordeal twice. Having a prelim is no guarantee a case won't be appealed.

Once again, you appear to have misread my post. I didn't say the DI was given because of the witness's reliability. I said that, perhaps if there had been one, the Crown may have found out how unreliable she was going to be and not have been caught so off guard at the trial. With all the video evidence, her testimony should not have been so important, but IMO I think it's pretty easy to understand why they felt it was.

You may not know much about the cases but those who applied for and issued the DIs do. The fact that DIs were issued indicates that those who have studied the evidence believe the charges are correct.

Well, I would certainly hope that the Crown and the AG know more about the cases than we do at this point. And I would hope that the Crown also believes the charges are correct or they would have laid those lesser charges. As we all know, the Crown, however, isn't always correct. That's why we have trials instead of just sentencing accused on the Crown's beliefs.

JMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

Five cases? Or five people charged? We have TB, LB, WM and the weapon case. What is the fifth?

Thge fifth trial will be CN's accessory trial?

 

[Tamarind]

I'm sorry, I'm talking about jurors. Jurors can't be part of discussion groups where they post a certain viewpoint, and claim to be impartial, IMO.

Yes I realize that is what is expected of jurors. I posted the paragraph that was found within your link to state what we probably already know:

'The unusual thing about this case is that it’s rare for this kind of information to come to light,” MacKinnon says. “I’m sure that jurors in many cases, on a daily or weekly basis, are doing the same thing. However, they’re not telling anyone because they know they’re not supposed to, and therefore it never gets discovered.”

 

[Juballee]

I don't agree. IMO The time is NOW to be presuming innocence, and THEN waiting for details to emerge at a fair trial. We as people should be taking rights very seriously and maintaining them at all cost IMO. I have no 'function' , I have opinions that I am airing on a forum as others do. I, as with others, should not be told when and where I should be questioning or critiquing... IMO. I have been ignoring many personal opinions since posting here, as I am sure many others have been. That is choice and it is ongoing and not to be determined 'then' IMO JMO

I agree with you, Tamarind, and I think that history eventually will too. To pretend that the right to be presumed innocent only counts if you are a judge or on a jury is denying people their rights most of the time, in my opinion. Can you imagine if people treated our other rights as if they only counted when we are in a courtroom? People used to treat racism and the right to be treated equally under the law in the same manner, it only counted when it was in court, but at home people felt perfectly comfortable calling the same people by racist names. To think that ignoring people's rights is acceptable in private forums and that those rights only count in the courtroom, to me is the type of thing that history does not remember kindly. Often rights and laws change before the public sentiment has fully embraced the change, in my opinion.

 

[SnooperDuper]

I agree with you, Tamarind, and I think that history eventually will too. To pretend that the right to be presumed innocent only counts if you are a judge or on a jury is denying people their rights most of the time, in my opinion. Can you imagine if people treated our other rights as if they only counted when we are in a courtroom? People used to treat racism and the right to be treated equally under the law in the same manner, it only counted when it was in court, but at home people felt perfectly comfortable calling the same people by racist names. To think that ignoring people's rights is acceptable in private forums and that those rights only count in the courtroom, to me is the type of thing that history does not remember kindly. Often rights and laws change before the public sentiment has fully embraced the change, in my opinion.

Well "presumed" only means "To take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/presumed

DM doesn't have the right to be innocent.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Well "presumed" only means "To take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/presumed

DM doesn't have the right to be innocent.

He's presumed innocent, there's evidence to the contrary, and he's in jail on account of that.

Being "accused" is really a different state other than guilty or not guilty or innocent.

 

[Juballee]

Well "presumed" only means "To take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/presumed

DM doesn't have the right to be innocent.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make sense to me. Did someone say that there is a right to be innocent, because as far as I know it is the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Of course, anyone can be be innocent if they are, but it's not a right that I have heard of before. Until a jury has heard the evidence and made a decision, they have the right to be presumed innocent. If some people feel it is their prerogative to disenfranchise others of their rights, they have their own consciousness to contend with, I guess. All my opinion only

 

[Arnie M]

I don't agree. IMO The time is NOW to be presuming innocence, and THEN waiting for details to emerge at a fair trial. We as people should be taking rights very seriously and maintaining them at all cost IMO. I have no 'function' , I have opinions that I am airing on a forum as others do. I, as with others, should not be told when and where I should be questioning or critiquing... IMO. I have been ignoring many personal opinions since posting here, as I am sure many others have been. That is choice and it is ongoing and not to be determined 'then' IMO JMO

Someone is arrested for grand theft auto , kidnapping , and three murders , and you say we should presume he is innocent ? Somehow I just cant wrap my head around that. But then again , I could be in denial. It has been known to happen to some people.

The phrase "presumption of innocence" applies to how our Justice System TREATS the accused ahead of the trial . It is not a commandment to force us to think he is innocent . It is so we dont hang 'em from a lamppost before the sun goes down

If police have arrested the wrong people .... have you heard of even one single thing to indicate that ? . I have not .

 

[SnooperDuper]

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make sense to me. Did someone say that there is a right to be innocent, because as far as I know it is the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Of course, anyone can be be innocent if they are, but it's not a right that I have heard of before. Until a jury has heard the evidence and made a decision, they have the right to be presumed innocent. If some people feel it is their prerogative to disenfranchise others of their rights, they have their own consciousness to contend with, I guess. All my opinion only

I think the guy's probably guilty, and the trials will confirm that. I'm not violating anybody's rights by saying that.

 

[SnooperDuper]

The presumption of innocence principle supports the practice of releasing criminal defendants from jail prior to trial. However, the government may detain some criminal defendants without bail through the end of trial. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that excessive bail shall not be required, but it is widely accepted that governments have the right to detain through trial a defendant of a serious crime who is a flight risk or poses a danger to the public. In such cases the presumption of innocence is largely theoretical.

Aside from the related requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence is largely symbolic. The reality is that no defendant would face trial unless somebody—the crime victim, the prosecutor, a police officer—believed that the defendant was guilty of a crime. After the government has presented enough evidence to constitute Probable Cause to believe that the defendant has committed a crime, the accused need not be treated as if he or she was innocent of a crime, and the defendant may be jailed with the approval of the court.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Innocent+until+proven+guilty

 

[Tamarind]

Well "presumed" only means "To take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/presumed

DM doesn't have the right to be innocent.

We have no idea whether there is proof to the contrary, therefore he absolutely does have the right to be considered innocent unless there is absolute proof to the contrary.

If he is innocent he will be innocent now and 'then'. His state of being is innocent, if in fact he is innocent.

Why does it always come back to DM being guilty and not MS? Aren't they both charged?

 

[Tamarind]

I think the guy's probably guilty, and the trials will confirm that. I'm not violating anybody's rights by saying that.

It's an opinion only, just as everyone else has an opinion. It is when opinions are posted as facts that the problems arise IMO. I think we have been down this road before.

 

[Tamarind]

Someone is arrested for grand theft auto , kidnapping , and three murders , and you say we should presume he is innocent ? Somehow I just cant wrap my head around that. But then again , I could be in denial. It has been known to happen to some people.

The phrase "presumption of innocence" applies to how our Justice System TREATS the accused ahead of the trial . It is not a commandment to force us to think he is innocent . It is so we dont hang 'em from a lamppost before the sun goes down

If police have arrested the wrong people .... have you heard of even one single thing to indicate that ? . I have not .

I don't believe it only applies to the justice system to presume someone to BE innocent. Why should we not hold to that same principle? Are we lesser than the 'system'?. If it were a commandment do you think it would stop the 'hang'em high' chants?

The police often arrest the wrong people, I happen to know that they do. I think to imply that someone is in denial because they choose to wait until trial before proposing a lynching or similar is quite offensive. JMO

 

[Tamarind]

He's presumed innocent, there's evidence to the contrary, and he's in jail on account of that.

Being "accused" is really a different state other than guilty or not guilty or innocent.

It is being alleged that there is evidence to the contrary.
Yes THEY are in jail based on the allegations.
Being accused is just what it says, they are accused of doing something !

Anyone can be accused of anything. It doesn't mean it is a fact. The accused are not there to prove their innocence. The prosecution is there to try to prove guilt. Sometimes in trying to prove someones guilt, the opposite occurs.

 

[swedie]

I think the prelims are behind closed doors. Very unlikely that everyone and their Great Aunt would be there IMO. Innocent people do waive their right to a prelim for varying reasons, I simply believe it should be a decision the accused makes. JMO




If the crown can insist on one then so should the defense be able to do same IMO

Please provide a link.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Not necessarily

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dai...bout-being-on-a-jury-in-canada-204552973.html

Thanks for posting this link, SnooperDuper. Sometimes I think it's good to remind people that jury selection isn't like what we see on TV. When a friend of mine was selected for jury duty, the only thing she was asked was if she knew any of the accused or the victim. Then the Defense and the Crown either accepted or declined. If accepted, that person was taken to another courtroom. I don't know what happens in that second room, if anything, before the trial starts, but this article leads me to believe that nothing further happens. So it's pretty hit and miss on who ends up on any given jury.

Jurors aren't grilled by both sides before the trial
Remember all those scenes you’ve seen or read, where lawyers from both sides ask potential jurors how they feel about any and everything, trying to tailor a sympathetic jury before the trial even begins? Again, not here.
“The default position in Canada is you know very little about the potential jurors,” Lacy says. “You know nothing about their religious beliefs, political beliefs, their views on the criminal justice system, or the police. You’re selecting a jury in almost a blind fashion – going on gut instinct. Frankly, I think your chances of being able to guess accurately who’s a good juror, based on the information you have, is about as good as just randomly selecting twelve people.”