Suspect #1: Dellen Millard *Charged* 1st Deg Murder 15 May 2013 #2

[Alethea Dice]

So we are practically at Judicial Pretrial without bail/and release because.....

a) No bail has been sought by an innocent man (innocent, per some people's opinion)?
b) Bail has been sought but denied to an innocent man (innocent, per some people's opinion)?

Is this a correct summation? If so, and with all the "evidence" pointing to a frame up/set up/planting of evidence by Police, etc. has anyone alerted the police to this?

No, that's not a correct summation. Judicial Pretrial has nothing to do with bail. He can apply anytime up to the start of the trial.

Speaking only for myself, I have no idea whether he's an innocent man or a guilty man. All I know is that there are still too many unanswered questions for me to hang him without waiting for more information.

I would hope LE are investigating all avenues without needing to be alerted to other possibilities. But if they do need that alert, perhaps this is a good example of how things can be missed when tunnel vision comes into play. Exaggeration and sarcasm doesn't help your argument.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

You mention FULL disclosure numerous times. If you would be so kind, would you define what FULL disclosure is(to you) and when it occurs in law and when will it be enough(to you) to move to the next Canadian Criminal Judicial step?

You see, they are going to have Judicial Pretrial soon and that's 'pert near impossible without full disclosure.

Now I agree, and have posted previously that evidence can continue to come in even during trial so literally there is never really FULL disclosure but enough to satisfy the Judicial System so as to move to the next step.

Are they going to have Judicial Pretrial soon? I guess that remains to be seen and whether more disclosure is provided by the next court day.

Dellen Millard and Mark Smich, the men charged with killing Tim Bosma, will appear in court on Sept. 12 to set a date for a judicial pretrial.

Lawyers for Millard and Smich are seeking further disclosure on the case, and both will be back in court on Sept. 12

.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/bosma-suspect-millard-next-court-september-12-153613431.html

The Crown has given the defence two rounds of disclosure, with more to come, court heard.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/3921711-widow-sits-through-appearances-of-bosma-s-accused-killers/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Slowly, slowly, the two co-accused have begun their halting path through the justice system — the Crown’s disclosure provided in chunks to their defence lawyers, new appearance dates made, a judicial pretrial and preliminary hearing still far in the future.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/08/01/tim-bosmas-widow-in-court-for-accused-murderers-appearance

HTH

 

[Archangel7]

No, that's not a correct summation. Judicial Pretrial has nothing to do with bail. He can apply anytime up to the start of the trial.

Speaking only for myself, I have no idea whether he's an innocent man or a guilty man. All I know is that there are still too many unanswered questions for me to hang him without waiting for more information.

I would hope LE are investigating all avenues without needing to be alerted to other possibilities. But if they do need that alert, perhaps this is a good example of how things can be missed when tunnel vision comes into play. Exaggeration and sarcasm doesn't help your argument.

JMO

My "argument" is that the system has progressed to the point of Pretrial with no bail apparently. Pretrial will lay it ALL out before a Judge and it will be dismissal or Trial, meaning there is enough guilt and or question of same to Try. There won't likely be much more damning evidence to disclose in the future.

So my argument is that there has been enough disclosure to show his involvement, thus no bail yet.

Unsubstantiated claims of setups and ridiculous unfounded claims of LE evidence planting doesn't help your side of the argument either.

Two things to remember.....

1) Never assume the cops know everything in an investigation. That's why they have TIP lines to call.

2) If you or others have all this "evidence" of setup, frame up, OC. professional hitmen, Corporate takeover, etc., etc., you should call the HPD immediately.

 

[Alethea Dice]

My "argument" is that the system has progressed to the point of Pretrial with no bail apparently. Pretrial will lay it ALL out before a Judge and it will be dismissal or Trial, meaning there is enough guilt and or question of same to Try. There won't likely be much more damning evidence to disclose in the future.

So my argument is that there has been enough disclosure to show his involvement, thus no bail yet.

Unsubstantiated claims of setups and ridiculous unfounded claims of LE evidence planting doesn't help your side of the argument either.

Two things to remember.....

1) Never assume the cops know everything in an investigation. That's why they have TIP lines to call.

2) If you or others have all this "evidence" of setup, frame up, OC. professional hitmen, Corporate takeover, etc., etc., you should call the HPD immediately.

Well, that's your opinion. Whether pretrial starts next month remains to be seen. The lawyers seem to be still asking for more disclosure regardless of how much or what kind you think is left to disclose. Same with whether or not he has yet or will be applying for bail. We'll have to wait to see.

I'm not sure why you're directing comments about setups and frames at me, as I have no theory and have never claimed any evidence of such. I like to think outside the box and am open to discussing different possibilities of what could lead to the same end result, when there are so many unanswered questions and things that just don't make sense to me. Which, I believe, is all that anyone here is doing. No one is claiming to have "evidence" of anything. People are just sleuthing other options that could help make it more understandable to themself.

If we all agreed and we all thought the same way, the world would be a pretty boring place IMO.

JMO

 

[Archangel7]

Well, that's your opinion. Whether pretrial starts next month remains to be seen. The lawyers seem to be still asking for more disclosure regardless of how much or what kind you think is left to disclose. Same with whether or not he has yet or will be applying for bail. We'll have to wait to see.

I'm not sure why you're directing comments about setups and frames at me, as I have no theory and have never claimed any evidence of such. I like to think outside the box and am open to discussing different possibilities of what could lead to the same end result, when there are so many unanswered questions and things that just don't make sense to me. Which, I believe, is all that anyone here is doing. No one is claiming to have "evidence" of anything. People are just sleuthing other options that could help make it more understandable to themself.

If we all agreed and we all thought the same way, the world would be a pretty boring place IMO.

JMO

I believe DP asked for a pretrial inquiry at arraignment. That also would have likely transpired by now and it appears the Judicial Pretrial(which follows pretrial inq.)date will be set Sept. 12th.

AD, I do agree on the worlds would be a boring place statement.

Also, possibly I could have worded my sentence in the previous post to reply to you without you feeling it was directed at you in reference to "you" calling police if you had that forementioned evidence. It should have read something like..... if you have any evidence or others have all this evidence of frame up.....

However, I do find the cop bashing, accusations of evidence planting etc. in bad taste and a telling character data point from some posts on here.

 

[Alethea Dice]

I believe DP asked for a pretrial inquiry at arraignment. That also would have likely transpired by now and it appears the Judicial Pretrial(which follows pretrial inq.)date will be set Sept. 12th.

AD, I do agree on the worlds would be a boring place statement.

Also, possibly I could have worded my sentence in the previous post to reply to you without you feeling it was directed at you in reference to "you" calling police if you had that forementioned evidence. It should have read something like..... if you have any evidence or others have all this evidence of frame up.....

However, I do find the cop bashing, accusations of evidence planting etc. in bad taste and a telling character data point from some posts on here.

Thank you for that, and I do understand your sensitivity in that area. I'm not much for cop bashing either and am usually one of those who will defend LE and most of their actions. What people have experienced in their lives can/will affect their feelings on that subject. There are good cops and bad cops, just as there is good and bad in all of us.

I know the intent is to set a date for the pretrial at the next court appearance. I'm just not feeling that confident having watched how slowly the wheels of justice can turn here. But I will wait and see and hope that it does happen.

 

[Carli]

I believe DP asked for a pretrial inquiry at arraignment. That also would have likely transpired by now and it appears the Judicial Pretrial(which follows pretrial inq.)date will be set Sept. 12th.

AD, I do agree on the worlds would be a boring place statement.

Also, possibly I could have worded my sentence in the previous post to reply to you without you feeling it was directed at you in reference to "you" calling police if you had that forementioned evidence. It should have read something like..... if you have any evidence or others have all this evidence of frame up.....

However, I do find the cop bashing, accusations of evidence planting etc. in bad taste and a telling character data point from some posts on here.

Hate to be a buttinsky but I need help understanding what is meant by the reference to "character data point". I'm reasonably familiar with cardinality estimation algorithms as, I gather, you must be as well, but I admit failing to see the relevance in this context. In particular, I'd be very pleased to more clearly understand your thoughts on your set's construction base to the extent that it may involve a more precise determination of deductive probability. Thanks.

 

[Sillybilly]

In simple terms, a data point is a unit of observation from which to draw conclusions, so not necessarily just used in mathematics.

 

[Carli]

In simple terms, a data point is a unit of observation from which to draw conclusions, so not necessarily just used in mathematics.

Forgive me but that seems to confuse me further. I will not quibble with your definition except to note that a single data point is meaningless. Data points are only useful tools when two or more interrelationships are interpreted. More importantly I don't see how data points, particularly "character data points" as mentioned in Archangel's post could be determined in anything other than a mathematical analysis, or more specifically, computational analysis of complex problems. To effect a more readily available and understandable conclusions, I'd presume arithmetic, rather than character units would be preferred. Anyway, computational criminology is a somewhat esoteric concept that attracted a number of adherents some years ago, but again, I can't immediately see the relevance here. Perhaps if she could provide an example, that would help. Thanks. I don't mean to belabour the subject, but given the fairly significant number of criminal cases and current investigations involving police these days I wondered if she may be referring to a graphical or statistical analysis series on the subject. If there is work being done in this area that is posted online, a link would be much appreciated. Thanks again.

 

[dizzy1]

MOO, but I believe what AA is trying to say is that for the most part, the average law-abiding person has trust in LE, and believe they are handling the case in a sensible manner. There is no reason to believe they are planting evidence, or contaminating crime scenes IMO. MOO, people who tend to have a bad image of LE usually have had an experience on the wrong side of the law. Totally MOO. Although it seems to some that LE has just a "few crumbs" of evidence to go on, I firmly believe that because of the publication ban we are not aware of the majority of evidence that LE has. MOO MOO MOO

 

[Archangel7]

Silly Billy and Dizzy1 summed it up nicely as it was used and intended in my post.

I'm not a she.

 

[lanman]

MOO, but I believe what AA is trying to say is that for the most part, the average law-abiding person has trust in LE, and believe they are handling the case in a sensible manner. There is no reason to believe they are planting evidence, or contaminating crime scenes IMO. MOO, people who tend to have a bad image of LE usually have had an experience on the wrong side of the law. Totally MOO. Although it seems to some that LE has just a "few crumbs" of evidence to go on, I firmly believe that because of the publication ban we are not aware of the majority of evidence that LE has. MOO MOO MOO

A tall guy with a tattoo and a short guy with a hoodie = 'a few crumbs'

Throw in a couple of positive ID's, video evidence of the Yukon, the body on a farm, the truck in a trailer, the link to the burner phone, etc, and you've got yourself almost a full loaf of bread (moo)

Hopefully LE have come up with enough forensic evidence in the past few months to make a 3 course meal.

 

[Snoofo]

If the accused are in fact truly guilty of the crime, then I hope you are right Sillbilly.

If the forensic evidence is not there....then does it rest with the better lawyer?

 

[Carli]

Silly Billy and Dizzy1 summed it up nicely as it was used and intended in my post.

I'm not a she.

If, as you say, that was the intention of your post then I'm very disheartened by it. Citizens demand and deserve the highest level of accountability from those who draw from the public purse, nowhere more particularly and specifically than in the conduct of police services in this and each and every case. The addendum that added the astonishing IMO detail that those who question police behavior are only those who have themselves broken the law in the past is deeply worrying, IMO. A presumption of innocence is not just an idle phrase but a cornerstone of the very foundation of justice and equality in a free society and the price of such liberty, as we know, is eternal vigilance. Having lived in a police state I am acutely aware of the harsh consequences attending any attempt to call authority to account. In such an environment, even the outstanding opportunity to present opinions and alternative thoughts afforded to us all by this outstanding WebSleuths website would be subjected to extreme political and police censure without recourse, as would each person whose posts are published here.

Regarding the gender mixup, I guess it was something about the general tone of your posts that misled me together with a completely unjustified conjecture that many or most who post here are probably older females with the available time and interest to follow these cases. Obviously, I'm also guilty of making false assumptions based on mis-interpreted evidence, for which I sincerely apologize.

 

[Archangel7]

If, as you say, that was the intention of your post then I'm very disheartened by it. Citizens demand and deserve the highest level of accountability from those who draw from the public purse, nowhere more particularly and specifically than in the conduct of police services in this and each and every case. The addendum that added the astonishing IMO detail that those who question police behavior are only those who have themselves broken the law in the past is deeply worrying, IMO. A presumption of innocence is not just an idle phrase but a cornerstone of the very foundation of justice and equality in a free society and the price of such liberty, as we know, is eternal vigilance. Having lived in a police state I am acutely aware of the harsh consequences attending any attempt to call authority to account. In such an environment, even the outstanding opportunity to present opinions and alternative thoughts afforded to us all by this outstanding WebSleuths website would be subjected to extreme political and police censure without recourse, as would each person whose posts are published here.

Regarding the gender mixup, I guess it was something about the general tone of your posts that misled me together with a completely unjustified conjecture that many or most who post here are probably older females with the available time and interest to follow these cases. Obviously, I'm also guilty of making false assumptions based on mis-interpreted evidence, for which I sincerely apologize.

I wouldn't wish you or anyone to think I support, condone or excuse unlawful behavior by LE because, simply put, I don't and never have.

I do question the reasoning behind the innuendo of LE planting evidence in this case as previously posted by some, among other accusations laid.

Questioning rule of law or the enforcers of the law is not a bad thing in a free and democratic society. However, neither is questioning the character of people that continue to bash investigators of this case.

Carli, no apology needed on the gender mix up, but thank you sincerely for it. Now that act does show a character data point. lol
The Archangel moniker was my call sign on special teams. I guess it does sound feminine and you did make me smile.

 

[Alethea Dice]

MOO, but I believe what AA is trying to say is that for the most part, the average law-abiding person has trust in LE, and believe they are handling the case in a sensible manner. There is no reason to believe they are planting evidence, or contaminating crime scenes IMO. MOO, people who tend to have a bad image of LE usually have had an experience on the wrong side of the law. Totally MOO. Although it seems to some that LE has just a "few crumbs" of evidence to go on, I firmly believe that because of the publication ban we are not aware of the majority of evidence that LE has. MOO MOO MOO

Wow, I never would have taken the meaning to be that extreme. I realize many people judge by first impressions, whether it's in how a person looks, something he/she does, or something he/she says. Sometimes that impression can be correct, many times it can be totally wrong. You can look at the cover, but until you read the whole book, you have no idea what's inside.

I doubt that most people who have a bad image or a distrust of LE have been on the wrong side of the law. Some may have just experienced or viewed something that they felt wasn't handled properly or wasn't dealt with at all. For example, I doubt the Jessop's have a good image of LE and they weren't on the "wrong side of the law". But they're still living with the heartbreak and frustrations of LE chasing the wrong suspect and making the evidence fit. And after all that wasted time, the killer remains free (if he's even still alive). No one will ever know if it was an honest mistake or if they just wanted to solve the crime and keep the public happy.

As I said before, there are good cops and bad cops. I personally believe that the majority are good, but I'm not blind to the fact that others aren't so good.

JMO

Sorry, Archangel, I didn't realize you had already posted a much better explanation than the previous one offered.

 

[Snoofo]

...
Regarding the gender mixup, I guess it was something about the general tone of your posts that misled me together with a completely unjustified conjecture that many or most who post here are probably older females with the available time and interest to follow these cases.

What? We're all a bunch of Middle-Aged women? I guess there's no chance in ever getting the last word in, then?
:drumroll:

 

[Sillybilly]

The Archangel moniker was my call sign on special teams. I guess it does sound feminine and you did make me smile.

Nope, doesn't sound feminine at all ... all 7 archangels were males

:angel2:

 

[dizzy1]

Wow, I never would have taken the meaning to be that extreme. I realize many people judge by first impressions, whether it's in how a person looks, something he/she does, or something he/she says. Sometimes that impression can be correct, many times it can be totally wrong. You can look at the cover, but until you read the whole book, you have no idea what's inside.

I doubt that most people who have a bad image or a distrust of LE have been on the wrong side of the law. Some may have just experienced or viewed something that they felt wasn't handled properly or wasn't dealt with at all. For example, I doubt the Jessop's have a good image of LE and they weren't on the "wrong side of the law". But they're still living with the heartbreak and frustrations of LE chasing the wrong suspect and making the evidence fit. And after all that wasted time, the killer remains free (if he's even still alive). No one will ever know if it was an honest mistake or if they just wanted to solve the crime and keep the public happy.

As I said before, there are good cops and bad cops. I personally believe that the majority are good, but I'm not blind to the fact that others aren't so good.

JMO

Sorry, Archangel, I didn't realize you had already posted a much better explanation than the previous one offered.

I believe as well that first impressions aren't always as they seem. My example would be DM and the squeaky clean choir-boy image some believe him to have. I personally have no feelings toward him one way or another, so I can believe that even though he may have seemed to have it all (looks, money, etc), it is absolutely possible he commited the crimes he's accused of, and that he was dumb enough to leave all that evidence behind believing that LE wouldn't look at him twice. MOO

When I refer to people who dislike LE, that is totally MOO. In my personal experience, when I come across people who strongly dislike cops, it is usually because at some point in their lives they have had a bad experience with them.

I cannot speak for the Jessop's, and I have no idea if they like or dislike LE. I am sure they hate the person who hasn't been caught/charged with the crime more. The case you refer to was almost 30 years ago, there have been a lot of investigative advancements since that time IMO. Homicide Detectives don't
just go by a fingerprint at a crime scene anymore. GPM was acquitted because of advancements made in DNA testing.

It just seems to me in regards to this case (and I do not mean you personally AD) that some posters have taken to accusing LE of sloppy police work (contaminating the crime scenes), or illegal activity (planting evidence). I am well aware of a few local recent cases that may make some people take a step back and question their trust in LE, but it hasn't changed my personal opinion of them as a whole. There will always be a few bad apples in every bunch. I have found no reason to distrust HPD in regards to the way they are handling this case. So far as I can tell, they are handling the TB case in a speedy, respectable manner, acquiring search warrants when needed, adhering to publication bans etc. As usual, MOO.

 

[Snoofo]

(snip)
It just seems to me in regards to this case (and I do not mean you personally AD) that some posters have taken to accusing LE of sloppy police work (contaminating the crime scenes), or illegal activity (planting evidence). I am well aware of a few local recent cases that may make some people take a step back and question their trust in LE, but it hasn't changed my personal opinion of them as a whole. There will always be a few bad apples in every bunch. I have found no reason to distrust HPD in regards to the way they are handling this case. So far as I can tell, they are handling the TB case in a speedy, respectable manner, acquiring search warrants when needed, adhering to publication bans etc. As usual, MOO.

I dont recall any poster specifically accusing HPS of planting or contaminating evidence in this case. I think there was a statement about how that is a possibility with LE as they have been known to do that from time to time, as we've probably all heard about at some point. In fact I think the poster that you might be referring to said nothing different, as a statement or opinion, than you just stated above about a few bad apples. The rest was hypothetical speak, not an accusation or a suggestion that HPS have in fact contaminated evidence. To say that is ever a possibility is not incorrect; to make a bold accusation would, of course, be wrong but IMO nobody went that far.