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

[Tamarind]

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

I haven't come across anyone who fits this description as far as DM is concerned, have you? Do you have any links?

 

[SnooperDuper]

I haven't come across anyone who fits this description as far as DM is concerned, have you? Do you have any links?

Can't link the Facebook support groups for DM here, sorry.

 

[Tamarind]

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

plea outs ?? to get out of the system by those who dont have enough money to fight. ?? stayed proceedings etc?

 

[SnooperDuper]

plea outs ?? to get out of the system by those who dont have enough money to fight. ?? stayed proceedings etc?

Yes, some of those 10 plead guilty originally.

 

[Tamarind]

Can't link the Facebook support groups for DM here, sorry.

I have read the Facebook groups, none are DM support groups they are case related groups. I havent found any FB poster who seems to fit the description of groupie. MOO

 

[Tamarind]

Yes, some of those 10 plead guilty originally.

Pleas happen daily in their hundreds and thousands, where people can't afford to fight a case, and thereby take a plea.

 

[SnooperDuper]

I have read the Facebook groups, none are DM support groups they are case related groups. I havent found any FB poster who seems to fit the description of groupie.

What about the Letter-Leaker?

Here is the full text of the letter Dellen Millard, accused murderer of Tim Bosma, wrote from prison to one of his fans, a 31-year-old woman from the Kitchener area.

http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/2013/08/dellen-millards-letter-from-jail.html

This is a follow-up to add some background to my earlier post on Dellen Millard’s jailhouse letter to a female admirer.

http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/2013/07/the-dellen-millard-jailhouse-letter-part-ii.html

Millard's Q&A with a jailhouse groupie

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...rn-to-world-of-fast-cars-and-exotic-adventure

If this woman truly had DM's legal interests at heart, I doubt that she would be asking all the eHarmony questions.

 

[Tamarind]

What about the Letter-Leaker?



http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/2013/08/dellen-millards-letter-from-jail.html



http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/2013/07/the-dellen-millard-jailhouse-letter-part-ii.html



http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...rn-to-world-of-fast-cars-and-exotic-adventure

If this woman truly had DM's legal interests at heart, I doubt that she would be asking all the eHarmony questions.

So she was in a Facebook group? I didnt see her name there. FWIW

 

[SnooperDuper]

So she was in a Facebook group? I didnt see her name there. FWIW

Uh, how would you know her name?

Just asking.

The bigger question is, is it appropriate for the Letter-Leaker/Jailhouse Groupie to serve as a juror? The answer is a resounding NO.

 

[SnooperDuper]

It is also of concern when witnesses participate in social media:

A routine request and a routine order in administrative tribunal hearings is the exclusion of witnesses from the hearing room until the witness has given his or her testimony. The order goes beyond the hearing room. Under the exclusion order a witness is not permitted to discuss his or her testimony with anyone who will be testifying or has testified at the hearing.

Traditionally when we do trials we have an order excluding witnesses so the next witness can’t tailor their evidence to the previous witness. We do that so they don’t hear the evidence of the previous witness.

With this new media you have a situation where people could literally follow the trial on Twitter and discover exactly what we are excluding them from the courtroom to prevent them from discovering. And I know for a fact they did.

It was a big issue with O’Brien and it will be a big issue again.

Mr. Edelson issued a challenge to law societies and the judiciary to have a transparent and straightforward dialogue about social media and the appropriate ground rules: “.. it would be a fantastic thing for Canada to discuss it in a serious and comprehensive way.”

A start to the discussion would be for counsel and representatives to have serious conversations with their clients about the importance of respecting exclusion orders and the self-interest inherent in respecting them. Tribunals also need to educate parties and witnesses about the purpose of exclusion orders by including provisions in their Rules and explaining the reason for exclusion orders in guides for participants in hearing processes.

http://www.slaw.ca/2012/11/06/the-exclusion-of-witnesses-redundant-in-a-wired-world/

Witnesses are not allowed to communicate with the accused, even by third party, such as a third party contacted through social media.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Pleas happen daily in their hundreds and thousands, where people can't afford to fight a case, and thereby take a plea.

I don't think the court system in Ontario has the capacity to plea out hundred or thousands of people a day.

Obviously not having money is not a problem for DM, so we don't have to worry for a second that he will be wrongfully convicted because he does not have enough cash to defend himself.

 

[Tamarind]

Uh, how would you know her name?

Just asking.

The bigger question is, is it appropriate for the Letter-Leaker/Jailhouse Groupie to serve as a juror? The answer is a resounding NO.

Wasn't it Dee?... and if someone has obsession problems as in celebrity/fame obsession, I would imagine it would be quite apparent from the outset to those selecting the jury. JMO.

 

[Tamarind]

I don't think the court system in Ontario has the capacity to plea out hundred or thousands of people a day.

Sure they do, it is quicker to accept a plea than to take it to trial. Less costly too, not just for the one taking a plea but for the 'system'. IMO

Obviously not having money is not a problem for DM, so we don't have to worry for a second that he will be wrongfully convicted because he does not have enough cash to defend himself.

Those who take pleas due to lack of money don't usually get to a trial unless Legal Aid assists and even then the standard of counsel is questionable IMO

DM and MS don't appear to have applied for legal aid, so maybe they are hoping for justice as they see it. They do actually know the truth, which we do not. JMO

 

[Tamarind]

It is also of concern when witnesses participate in social media:

http://www.slaw.ca/2012/11/06/the-exclusion-of-witnesses-redundant-in-a-wired-world/

Witnesses are not allowed to communicate with the accused, even by third party, such as a third party contacted through social media.

I'm sure it is an ongoing problem now that all kinds of people have access to media. I am not sure why it's a focal point at the moment. It's not like anyone is wanting to stop reporting or discussing.

There are too many ways to circumvent certain rules... for the best or worst reasons.IMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

Those who take pleas due to lack of money don't usually get to a trial unless Legal Aid assists and even then the standard of counsel is questionable IMO

DM and MS don't appear to have applied for legal aid, so maybe they are hoping for justice as they see it. They do actually know the truth, which we do not. JMO

You misquoted my quote. I sue didn't write "Sure they do, it is quicker to accept a plea than to take it to trial. Less costly too, not just for the one taking a plea but for the 'system'. IMO"

In general, cases disposed of in adult criminal courts typically result in one of three decisions or outcomes. First, and most common, is a finding of guilt in which the accused person pleads guilty or is determined by the court to be responsible for having attempted or committed a criminal offence.Note 7 Second, case proceedings may be stopped or interrupted for a variety of reasons (e.g., lack of sufficient evidence or referral to an alternative measures program) resulting in charges being stayed (suspended for up to one year), withdrawn, dismissed or discharged at preliminary inquiry. Lastly, a relatively small proportion of cases result in an acquittal in which the accused person is found not guilty of the charges presented before the court.Note 8

In 2010/2011, a guilty finding was reached in about two-thirds (64%) of cases, a proportion that has remained relatively consistent over the past decade. Another 32% of cases were stayed, withdrawn, dismissed or discharged at preliminary inquiry, and 3% were acquitted. The remaining 1% of cases resulted in another type of decision such as the accused being found not criminally responsible or unfit to stand trial, the court's acceptance of a special plea, or cases that raised Charter arguments

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11646-eng.htm#a4

 

[SnooperDuper]

I'm sure it is an ongoing problem now that all kinds of people have access to media. I am not sure why it's a focal point at the moment. It's not like anyone is wanting to stop reporting or discussing.

There are too many ways to circumvent certain rules... for the best or worst reasons.IMO

Well I chose to focus on groupies and witnesses that are actively posting on this case on social media because there are legal implications to their behavior. If they lie to the court, they themselves may be charged and experience the court process in a whole new way.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Those who take pleas due to lack of money don't usually get to a trial unless Legal Aid assists and even then the standard of counsel is questionable IMO

DM and MS don't appear to have applied for legal aid, so maybe they are hoping for justice as they see it. They do actually know the truth, which we do not. JMO

As I said, money is not going to be an issue in this.

 

[Juballee]

Well I chose to focus on groupies and witnesses that are actively posting on this case on social media because there are legal implications to their behavior. If they lie to the court, they themselves may be charged and experience the court process in a whole new way.

If those with a presumption of innocence until proven guilty are shunned from juries as 'groupies', I think all of justice is in danger. I hope that when they are excluding jurors, they eliminate ones with a preconceived opinion as to guilt or innocence, no matter which side of the debate they rooted for previously. Which is to say that I hope anyone who has been following the case here would be excluded as a juror, no matter who they are or what their opinions, no offence to anyone.

As to the witnesses, unless they sequester them all from all media, including their phones and Internet, I think that there is no way to guarantee that they will not be following the case somehow. If the witnesses didn't know it before, they may have been able to read here that people like Swedie tweet it out live from the courtroom as it unfolds. Unless the courts are able to strip everyone of their electronic devices before entering the courtroom and then make them all sign an agreement not to speak or tweet about what they had heard each day under order of law, it would be difficult to control this situation, in my opinion.

 

[matou]

Hey there are many cases on WS where murder suspects could use the same support as here. JMO

 

[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

BBM - Maybe you missed my question Tamarind so I'll ask again, do you have a link saying PHs are held behind closed doors? I've searched but cannot find the answer to your assumption. TIA. :sigh:

UBM - Well if the accused were innocent they obviously didn't chose to waive their right to a PH. But again, they could be relieved it's not going to happen in two of the cases. I do really wonder why CN signed on the dotted line, choosing to waive her right to the PH.

BBM - Why do you think it is the AG who got final say on DI? The Crown insisted/asked for one (based on solid evidence in both TB and LB's cases), defense perhaps wasn't in agreement, therefore it became the decision of higher up, the AG. HTH and all MOO.