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

[swedie]

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.

"You're guilty until proven innocent. Perception is reality, that's the way that it is in this world."
C Webber

Respectfully inquiring, so what would your opinion be if it were the other way around? Some food for thought as one day it just may come to that. Also there has been consideration for some time to do away with the PH altogether. Then what, would that still be a violation of rights? MOO.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Tamarind have you even considered the accused are actually welcoming the DI? Perhaps the accused don't want to sit through the PH and have to face their own families and friends, the victims' families and the public, and have everyone hear and see all the disgusting, evil and disturbing evidence against them? They will have to sit through the trial, perhaps they would rather opt out of the PH saving themselves the embarrassment and shame all over again. (That's if they are not psychopaths and are capable of having those feelings.) Could this be why CN has waived her right to the PI in TB's murder case? Or is she planning on being a witness for the Crown? Maybe she's just going to cooperate and agree with everything that goes on hoping someone will cut her a deal for being such a good Samaritan all around.
All MOO.

Christina Noudga — charged with being an accessory after the fact in the murder of Tim Bosma — appeared in court Wednesday to waive her right to a preliminary inquiry, opting to go straight to trial.

The 22-year-old — accused of helping her boyfriend Dellen Millard to “escape” in some way on May 9, 2013 — elected to be tried by judge and jury.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...cessory-to-murder-goes-straight-to-trial.html

Who is entitled to a preliminary hearing?
Lastly, not every charge entitles a person to a preliminary hearing. Preliminary hearings are only applicable to cases of a serious nature and proceeded by way of indictment. An accused may waive his or her right to a preliminary hearing; however, the Crown Attorney also has the right to conduct one regardless of the accused’s waiver.

https://robichaudlaw.ca/ontario-criminal-court-procedures/preliminary-hearings-criminal/

I think we can safely assume that it wasn't the accused's choice to opt out of the preliminary hearing in these cases since it was reported that it was the Crown who requested it, not the two accused waiving it. And there's also this:

"We are disappointed with this development and will consider whatever recourse is available to redress what we feel is a regrettable denial of due process," Pillay said in an email to The Canadian Press.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/straight-to-trial-for-two-men-charged-with-murder-in-death-of-laura-babcock-1.2559397

Pillay said the move “significantly impedes” Millard’s ability to present “a full and complete defence to a serious criminal charge because there is only one shot to cross-examine the witnesses and reveal flaws in that testimony.”

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/07/16/tim-bosma-murder-accused-going-straight-to-trial

 

[swedie]

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?

The Crown and AG believe the evidence will result in guilty verdicts. Reason for the DI. Only in a court of law do they have the right to be presumed innocent. Anyone has a right to voice their opinions about guilt or innocence.

Maybe it always comes back to DM because he has been charged with three murders, appears to be the leader, everything has a connection to him, property, gun, vehicles, motives and had relationships with two of the murdered victims, for starters. MOO.

 

[swedie]

I think we can safely assume that it wasn't the accused's choice to opt out of the preliminary hearing in these cases since it was reported that it was the Crown who requested it, not the two accused waiving it. And there's also this:



http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/straight-to-trial-for-two-men-charged-with-murder-in-death-of-laura-babcock-1.2559397



http://www.torontosun.com/2014/07/16/tim-bosma-murder-accused-going-straight-to-trial

Response typed out before edits where made to post:

In their own minds, yes the accused may have welcomed the DI. If they have any sense of remorse, guilt, embarrassment, shame?! Just because their defense are disappointed, doesn't mean the accused are now does it? Maybe the defense are disappointed in the decision because it just means less $$ and they won't get a practice run to work out their line of tactics. I don't believe a practice run would do them any good anyhow as I believe the Crown has solid evidence which cannot be manipulated by the defense. ALL MOO.

 

[Alethea Dice]

"You're guilty until proven innocent. Perception is reality, that's the way that it is in this world."
C Webber

Respectfully inquiring, so what would your opinion be if it were the other way around? Some food for thought as one day it just may come to that. Also there has been consideration for some time to do away with the PH altogether. Then what, would that still be a violation of rights? MOO.

Perception isn't actual reality. It is only one's own personal 'perceived' reality based on what they believe and who they are, and is often coloured by how one wants it to be rather than the way it simply is. Since everyone's perceived reality can be different, which view is the actual reality? We each have to choose which view is the best fit for ourselves.

“What you see and what you hear depends a great deal on where you are standing. It also depends on what sort of person you are.”
― C.S. Lewis

If one day it becomes that one is guilty until proven innocent, then IMO we would be regressing rather than progressing and would have forgotten any lessons we should have learned throughout the years.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

Response typed out before edits where made to post:

In their own minds, yes the accused may have welcomed the DI. If they have any sense of remorse, guilt, embarrassment, shame?! Just because their defense are disappointed, doesn't mean the accused are now does it? Maybe the defense are disappointed in the decision because it just means less $$ and they won't get a practice run to work out their line of tactics. I don't believe a practice run would do them any good anyhow as I believe the Crown has solid evidence which cannot be manipulated by the defense. ALL MOO.

??? What edits? Sorry, confused.

I would hope the Defense lawyers would be working for the accused since they are the ones paying them. I don't think they generally go against what their clients want.

JMO

 

[swedie]

I think we can safely assume that it wasn't the accused's choice to opt out of the preliminary hearing in these cases since it was reported that it was the Crown who requested it, not the two accused waiving it. And there's also this:



http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/straight-to-trial-for-two-men-charged-with-murder-in-death-of-laura-babcock-1.2559397



http://www.torontosun.com/2014/07/16/tim-bosma-murder-accused-going-straight-to-trial

Your links, those are the words of DM's defense attorney. Of course he's going to make those claims. What is he suppose to say? He has to make an great impression on his paying client no doubt. :giggle: For Heaven sakes we cannot afford (in more ways than one) RP getting fired by DM on the grounds of improper or ineffective representation can we? We're now going into late 2016 early 2017 before LB's and WM's cases are supposed to get under way. Don't you think the victims' family deserve the right to justice also and in a timely manner? Some people have criticized LE, claiming it's a travesty of justice that LB's parents have no remains, no proof, no answers of what happened to their daughter. Some even refuse to believe she's dead, that she could be hiding out somewhere enjoying live. Don't you figure it's high time LB's parents get answers and some sort of closure? If DM fires RP, then what? How many more months or years will that set LB's trial date back? People complain about how long it already takes before these types of cases make it to trial. I would like to know how many stalling tactics the defense has used already to delay these trials and justice for TB, LB and WM. Maybe one day someone will write a novel and the answer will be known. ALL MOO.

 

[Arnie M]

.

Our society has arrested DM and MS on behalf of Sharlene Bosma and family , and on behalf of the Laura Babcock family on the presumption that they are guilty of murder.

Our society has not arrested them because we presume they are innocent.

 

[Tamarind]

.

Our society has arrested DM and MS on behalf of Sharlene Bosma and family , and on behalf of the Laura Babcock family on the presumption that they are guilty of murder.

Our society has not arrested them because we presume they are innocent.

Society has not arrested them. The police arrested them, on behalf of no-one. IMO. They were arrested because it is alleged, by the police and subsequently the Crown In Right of Her Majesty ( crown corporation ) that they committed a crime ie. caused harm/loss (death). The trial is to ascertain whether or not they did do that which they are accused of. That is MOO.

 

[Tamarind]

Your links, those are the words of DM's defense attorney. Of course he's going to make those claims. What is he suppose to say? He has to make an great impression on his paying client no doubt. :giggle: For Heaven sakes we cannot afford (in more ways than one) RP getting fired by DM on the grounds of improper or ineffective representation can we? We're now going into late 2016 early 2017 before LB's and WM's cases are supposed to get under way. Don't you think the victims' family deserve the right to justice also and in a timely manner? Some people have criticized LE, claiming it's a travesty of justice that LB's parents have no remains, no proof, no answers of what happened to their daughter. Some even refuse to believe she's dead, that she could be hiding out somewhere enjoying live. Don't you figure it's high time LB's parents get answers and some sort of closure? If DM fires RP, then what? How many more months or years will that set LB's trial date back? People complain about how long it already takes before these types of cases make it to trial. I would like to know how many stalling tactics the defense has used already to delay these trials and justice for TB, LB and WM. Maybe one day someone will write a novel and the answer will be known. ALL MOO.

I have a feeling there will be no closure for LB family at the trial. Nothing so far presented has lead me to believe that LE has any answers for anyone in that case. JMO

I also haven't seen any evidence of stalling tactics by the defense.

Novels are not the way to read truth as they are perspective based. JMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

.

Our society has arrested DM and MS on behalf of Sharlene Bosma and family , and on behalf of the Laura Babcock family on the presumption that they are guilty of murder.

Our society has not arrested them because we presume they are innocent.

Agreed: presumption of innocence is just a theoretical and symbolic concept applied in a court of law to direct the prosecution to find guilt, rather than the defense to prove innocence.

 

[SnooperDuper]

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.”

Well be careful about assuming what goes on in that other room. Sure, they don't get into a person's demographics in Canada. Surely they are asking people what they know of the trial and if they are actively rooting for one side or another on social media.

I believe reporters can access jury member's names, can they not? How else does it become uncovered that people are writing on social media during a trial?

I think jurors legally have to be honest about their biases. The ideal juror has been touched by little information before this case goes to trial. If they get a DM groupie on the jury, it could be cause for a mistrial. You would expect the courts to do due diligence to prevent that.

 

[Tamarind]

Agreed: presumption of innocence is just a theoretical and symbolic concept applied in a court of law to direct the prosecution to find guilt, rather than the defense to prove innocence.

I do not find that to be the general consensus for what people believe it means. People often do go with the presumption of innocence, because it feels right and because so many wrongful arrests and incarcerations occur. Society does seem to get brainwashed to believe that they do not have the right to freely believe whatever they choose. It makes absolute sense to me to presume someone as innocent until such time as they may be found guilty. I don't understand what is difficult to to understand about that concept. JMO MOO

 

[Tamarind]

Well be careful about assuming what goes on in that other room. Sure, they don't get into a person's demographics in Canada. Surely they are asking people what they know of the trial and if they are actively rooting for one side or another on social media.

I believe reporters can access jury member's names, can they not? How else does it become uncovered that people are writing on social media during a trial?

I think jurors legally have to be honest about their biases. The ideal juror has been touched by little information before this case goes to trial. If they get a DM groupie on the jury, it could be cause for a mistrial. You would expect the courts to do due diligence to prevent that.

Well by the time the press and bloggers have had there way, with disclosing everything possible in the press and online, there doesn't seem to be much chance of finding one perfect juror let alone 12. IMO.

What constitutes a DM groupie in your opinion?

Would that be those who dare to have maintained a presumption of innocence for all accused ever?

 

[SnooperDuper]

I do not find that to be the general consensus for what people believe it means. People often do go with the presumption of innocence, because it feels right and because so many wrongful arrests and incarcerations occur. Society does seem to get brainwashed to believe that they do not have the right to freely believe whatever they choose. It makes absolute sense to me to presume someone as innocent until such time as they may be found guilty. I don't understand what is difficult to to understand about that concept. JMO MOO

The "so many wrongful arrests and incarcerations occur" part. Got links?

 

[SnooperDuper]

The Exoneration Registry maintained in the United States puts the current number of the wrongly convicted at 1,125 since 1989. There is no such registry in Canada, but reliance is had to the findings of numerous public inquiries that have confirmed cases of wrongful conviction. Further, it has been estimated that in the United States upward of one half to one percent of all offenders in prison have been wrongfully convicted.

http://www.ccja-acjp.ca/cong2013/presentations/14.pdf

 

[Tamarind]

The "so many wrongful arrests and incarcerations occur" part. Got links?

It seems that links have been regularly supplied on this topic over the course of this case. If you would like me to repost again I can but I think Morin, Truscott et al may be keywords to finding them .

 

[SnooperDuper]

Well by the time the press and bloggers have had there way, with disclosing everything possible in the press and online, there doesn't seem to be much chance of finding one perfect juror let alone 12. IMO.

What constitutes a DM groupie in your opinion?

Would that be those who dare to have maintained a presumption of innocence for all accused ever?

Wikipedia defines a groupie as follows:

The term groupie is derived from group, in reference to a musical group, but the word is also used in a more general sense, especially in casual conversation, to mean a particular kind of female fan assumed to be more interested in relationships with rockstars than in their music. A groupie is generally considered a devoted female fan of a band or musical performer. The term originates from the female attaching herself to a band. A groupie is considered more intense about her adored celebrities than a fan and tends to follow them from place to place. A groupie will attempt to have a connection with the band and may seek intimate contact. Obsessive groupies will almost certainly involve themselves sexually with any members of the band including the roadies. Further, there are groupies of sports teams and many other types of celebrities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupie

 

[Tamarind]

http://www.ccja-acjp.ca/cong2013/presentations/14.pdf

Thats those we know of. It doesn't account for all the plea outs to get out of the system by those who dont have enough money to fight. It also doesn't appear to log any stayed proceedings etc. It is also in USA and this is Canada. MOO

 

[SnooperDuper]

It seems that links have been regularly supplied on this topic over the course of this case. If you would like me to repost again I can but I think Morin, Truscott et al may be keywords to finding them .

Wikipedia lists 10 wrongful convictions that were overturned since 1961...so in the last 54 years, there have been 0.2 cases overturned per year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases#Canada