Wayne Millard: Dellen Millard Charged With Murder In The First Degree #1

[robynhood]

Great to see you watched the Tori Strafford case too.....Althea Dice.....yes the charges were changed like Swede said above ...MR...charges were 3 counts and Rape was added because TLM...admitted things in her trial and pleaded GUILTY.. It was proven that MR was also guilty of a 3 counts....just explaining from what I remember but of course that TRIAL is still on websleuther if anyone wants to look how the DIRECT INDICMENT WORKED in that "CASE"....but every case is naturally individual ..for obvious reasons....."Rock'in robyn "tweeted the evidence in there....and I was NOT IN THE COURTROOM ever....PPL do it from home as the reporters tweets are copied and they are at the courthouse....many ppl will do it here I am sure...bye for now...robynhood.

 

[swedie]

Sorry, I don't remember her charges changing, only that she was still charged and convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life. And, due to the publication ban at the time, I have no idea when the sexual assault charge was laid.

If the claim is that DM has always maintained his silence, how did he point a finger at MS? I highly doubt MS will get a Karla deal when he was allegedly involved in a murder during a forcible confinement. And he definitely won't get a deal for testifying against CN or any of the three M's, whose charges are all lesser than his.

All I've ever heard about MS's time in jail is that he is in and out of solitary at various given times.

JMO

And who is it that claims DM maintains his right to remain silent? DP?

May 20, 2009
The young woman captured on widely publicized surveillance video walking with the Grade 3 student is allegedly a teenager just a decade older than Tori, 18-year-old Terri-Lynne McClintic. She is charged in Tori's abduction and as an accessory after the fact to murder.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-girl-who-was-hunted/article4296500/?page=all

Interesting to note TLM originally faced the same charge CN has been charged with. :what:
The accessory to murder charge against McClintic relates to helping Rafferty "on or about" April 8 escape from the city, according to the documents.

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/2009/05/20/police_search_for_toris_body.html

May 28, 2009
Terri-Lynne McClintic was arrested May 19 in Woodstock, Ont., and later appeared in court to face charges of abducting the eight-year-old schoolgirl, as well as assisting Michael Thomas C. S. Rafferty, 28, to escape the area and being an accessory to murder after the fact.

On Thursday, when McClintic and Rafferty made court appearances in Woodstock via video link, the charges against her were upgraded. McClintic, 18, now faces charges of first-degree murder and unlawful confinement.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...clintic-in-victoria-stafford-killing-1.785564

Additional charge against MR was made public via MSM January 16, 2012, during pretrial hearing.
Co-accused Terri-Lynne McClintic pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced to life in prison.

[I]Rafferty also faces an additional charge of sexual assault causing bodily harm, reported Delaney. The charge, which is listed on Rafferty's indictment, was laid in June 2010.[/I]

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/pre-trial-hea...rder-to-resume-tuesday-1.754448#ixzz3LlhwU6Ms

HTH AD.

 

[Tamarind]

You yourself are the public also Tamarind. Should you get called and serve as a jury member in this case, I guess you've already been swayed. Interesting comparative. MOO.

I am not easily swayed Swedie, I never judge anyone by gossip or by media, ever! I try to think outside of the box and I try not to throw stones at people, especially before knowing for sure they deserve it. I think I am more private than public, JMO

No actually I haven't been swayed at all Swedie, I still have a very unbiased view on the whole case. I still presume innocence, which is a presumption rather than a definitive position as to the outcome. If I was on the jury I would be listening intently and I would never convict anyone unless I was convinced there was no reasonable doubt. JMO

 

[Tamarind]

And who is it that claims DM maintains his right to remain silent? DP?

May 20, 2009
The young woman captured on widely publicized surveillance video walking with the Grade 3 student is allegedly a teenager just a decade older than Tori, 18-year-old Terri-Lynne McClintic. She is charged in Tori's abduction and as an accessory after the fact to murder.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-girl-who-was-hunted/article4296500/?page=all

Interesting to note TLM originally faced the same charge CN has been charged with. :what:
The accessory to murder charge against McClintic relates to helping Rafferty "on or about" April 8 escape from the city, according to the documents.

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/2009/05/20/police_search_for_toris_body.html

May 28, 2009
Terri-Lynne McClintic was arrested May 19 in Woodstock, Ont., and later appeared in court to face charges of abducting the eight-year-old schoolgirl, as well as assisting Michael Thomas C. S. Rafferty, 28, to escape the area and being an accessory to murder after the fact.

On Thursday, when McClintic and Rafferty made court appearances in Woodstock via video link, the charges against her were upgraded. McClintic, 18, now faces charges of first-degree murder and unlawful confinement.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...clintic-in-victoria-stafford-killing-1.785564

Additional charge against MR was made public via MSM January 16, 2012, during pretrial hearing.
Co-accused Terri-Lynne McClintic pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced to life in prison.

[I]Rafferty also faces an additional charge of sexual assault causing bodily harm, reported Delaney. The charge, which is listed on Rafferty's indictment, was laid in June 2010.[/I]

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/pre-trial-hea...rder-to-resume-tuesday-1.754448#ixzz3LlhwU6Ms

HTH AD.

IMO this is a totally different case and should be seen as a totally different case. I don't understand the need to align other cases with this one. The alleged perpetrators and victims are different people, no comparison IMO. No problem with people trying to make comparisons but it doesn't make sense to me JMO

 

[Tamarind]

You're probably right. Once a trial is over, it's over. I don't think too many people would continue to obsess over it.

JMO

Some might

 

[Tamarind]

posted twice

 

[Tamarind]

Not according to anything I can find. I did read one earlier that stated a direct indictment can only be appealed if there is proof of misconduct by the prosecution, or something similar to that. If I manage to find it again, I'll post it. Considering the defense isn't even given the reasons for the direct indictment, it would be a little difficult to argue it based on listed criterion. As well, direct indictments are also used sometimes when the first Judge finds insufficient evidence to go to trial, just to make sure it goes to trial. In those cases, sometimes they win, sometimes they lose.

There was a case in January of this year where a case/appeal was dismissed(will check if thats the correct action that occurred), it was thrown out anyway, based on wrongdoing by the prosecution. I will find it and post.

The case was: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13426/index.do

'The direct indictment before the judge at first instance set out 29 counts involving more than 150 accused. It also contained a number of counts that could not lawfully be included in it. This direct indictment, as preferred by the Crown, did not lend itself to a trial, and it gave rise to serious challenges with respect to disclosure of the evidence to the accused. Furthermore, the prosecution did not have a realistic plan for taking those charges to trial and conducting the trial within a reasonable time. '

 

[Sillybilly]

Not according to anything I can find. I did read one earlier that stated a direct indictment can only be appealed if there is proof of misconduct by the prosecution, or something similar to that. If I manage to find it again, I'll post it ...

Yes, abuse of process is grounds to bring forward a motion to quash (see last link/quote at bottom of this post).

Doing a copy/paste from your links as they won't show in quoting:

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/20..._to_trial.html

They are approved by the attorney general or deputy attorney general rather than by a judge in a courtroom. While both the Crown and defence can make submissions to the attorney general, there is no opportunity to appeal the decision.

Kruselaw is what I was relying on when saying the prosecution can't be challenged in the process of seeking direct indictment:

http://www.kruselaw.ca/blogpost?post=20140804

The prosecution cannot be challenged when asking for a direct indictment and a person loses their right to fully discover their case at the preliminary hearing.

<bbm>

IMO, the above two bolded statements are contradictory, but I think lawyers would be more familiar with the processes of law than a reporter (or are they making a distinction between making submissions differing from "challenging"?)

Here's reference to a motion to quash a direct indictment having been granted, but I'm not 100% sure it is/isn't related to the fact that the accused were minors covered by the YCJA (but obviously in Robinson's case cited earlier his lawyer proceeded with such motion prior to trial):

from:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7359/index.do

The Superior Court granted a motion by the young persons to quash the direct indictment. The Court of Appeal upheld that decision ...

[4] After this refusal, the Crown preferred a direct indictment against all the co&#8209;accused, adults and young persons alike, pursuant to s. 577 &#61582; Cr. C. One of the adults applied, unsuccessfully, to have the direct indictment quashed for abuse of process. The respondents filed their own motion to quash the direct indictment. The Superior Court granted the respondents&#8217; motion, and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision.

<bbm>

While the old saying "the law is an a$$" may not always hold true, it sure is a bummer trying to figure it out at times

 

[Sillybilly]

IMO this is a totally different case and should be seen as a totally different case. I don't understand the need to align other cases with this one. The alleged perpetrators and victims are different people, no comparison IMO. No problem with people trying to make comparisons but it doesn't make sense to me JMO

Legal precedents are used all the time from different cases, different people, where specific points of law are being discussed .. having said that, I'm not clear either what robyn is referring to with the quotes/bolding wrt Tori's case as it might relate to this one. :waitasec:

 

[Sillybilly]

From Ducharme law, relating to courts having granted motion to quash:

from:
http://www.ducharmefox.com/Areas/Custom/ContentFiles/Documents/CriminalProcedureCasebook2013.pdf

One should also be aware of the fact that if the court does quash an indictable offence that does not have a limitation period, subject only to a finding of abuse or an infringement the constitutional right to a trial within a reasonable time, the Crown may relay the charge. In addition, if the Crown does so, the accused will not be able to argue autrefois acquit.

"autrefois acquit" = plea that the defendant was previously acquitted

 

[Juballee]

My first statement was a simple fact that relates to any case, not just this one.



I don't need videos to know about the concept of not talking to police. That is basically when a person is arrested and prior to getting a lawyer. It's quite simple really ... if the person has a believable story with valid information or evidence to substantiate it, they can explain everything they know to their lawyer, and the lawyer works on his clients behalf to explain to the Crown why they have the wrong guy.

After my stepfather was murdered, we didn't need lawyers to explain to them what we knew, where we were and what we were doing at the time he was murdered. We told the truth, had no reasons to be arrested, and years later the guilty party was arrested, sentenced to life, and ultimately died in prison.

Truth is a funny thing, eh? It would be a frosty day in July that I would sit in a jail cell going on 2 years with information that could exonerate me on a first degree murder charge if I knew the truth, knew who was responsible, and could tell/show my accusers they are wrong.

I'm sorry to hear about your step-father, Sillybilly, murder is the hardest type of death for a family to get over, I think. That being said, I think that there is a difference between talking to the police when you are being initially questioned and are not told that you are considered a suspect. But once you are considered a suspect, it is different.

Every time someone says the old 'If he was innocent that he would have spoken to the police' or some similar adaptation of that theme, it is factually inaccurate. We all seem to conveniently forget that DM did actually speak to the police and did apparently answer their questions, and in the same manner that anyone else would if they were innocent. When LE initially questioned DM he was co-operative and helpful, from what I recall, and it wasn't until after he was arrested that he asserted his right to remain silent.

To me that part would be no different what anyone here would do, I think. They asked him questions and he co-operated. Then they arrested him and he did what any lawyer would advise him to do, which was to stop talking to LE. I really doubt that any of us would do any differently, if it was your freedom at stake and your money paying for legal advice, it would be foolish not to take your legal council's advice. But that doesn't make him automatically guilty, in my opinion.

 

[Juballee]

You beat me to it swedie. How does the Crown applying for and getting a direct indictment provide ammunition to the defense when the process basically eliminates the dt's ability to see how the Crown will present the evidence? :waitasec:

ETA: Direct indictment basically removes the defence team's ability to know how the Crown will present the evidence, which IMO is not a benefit to the defence. Nor is it a devious ploy by the Crown ... simply an indicator of how strong they believe their case to be.

ETA again: ^^ I think I just said the same thing twice? Another cup of java is in order here.

To me, the idea that a direct indictment is an indicator of how strong the crown believes their case to be just doesn't hold water. If the crown truly thought that their case was so iron clad, why would they be afraid to lay it out for the defence in a preliminary hearing? If they really thought that they had a slam dunk, why not tip their hand early and show the defence how powerless they are against the truth at the earliest convenience? That way, they could use that knowledge to convince the defendant that they really have no chance, and that they should just give in and plead guilty and save themselves and the taxpayers some money. Really, by skipping the preliminary hearing, they are removing any chance to save the taxpayers the expense of a trial.

I just don't find that to be a believable reason to skip the prelim, personally. It's illogical.

 

[swedie]

IMO this is a totally different case and should be seen as a totally different case. I don't understand the need to align other cases with this one. The alleged perpetrators and victims are different people, no comparison IMO. No problem with people trying to make comparisons but it doesn't make sense to me JMO

Well hopefully I can help make sense of it for you. My post originally started out to provide Althea Dice with information based on TLM's charges and how they changed over time, as AD said she did not recall the change of charges. While searching for the information I came upon the article stating TLM had originally been charged helping MR escape. I found it interesting that that is the same charge laid against CN. My point also being is charges can change. HTH.

You are absolutely right, it is a different case with different people but there are many comparatives; unlawful confinement, more than one perpetrator involved, trying to conceal or destroy the victim's remains, trying to help the perp escape, being an accessory to murder after the fact and of course murder. Maybe we will see changes to some of the charges against the accused in this case also. Time will tell. Again HTH and all MOO.

In a previous interview, Crown Attorney Anthony Leitch said the charge against Noudga relates to an allegation that she tried to help Millard "escape" on May 9, 2013.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...udga-bail-hearing-will-need-3rd-day-1.2723941

Christina Noudga, who is charged with being an accessory after the fact in the 2013 slaying of Tim Bosma, smiled as she left a Hamilton courtroom Friday, after being released on $100,000 bail.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...iles-as-she-s-released-on-100k-bail-1.2731080

 

[swedie]

I'm sorry to hear about your step-father, Sillybilly, murder is the hardest type of death for a family to get over, I think. That being said, I think that there is a difference between talking to the police when you are being initially questioned and are not told that you are considered a suspect. But once you are considered a suspect, it is different.

Every time someone says the old 'If he was innocent that he would have spoken to the police' or some similar adaptation of that theme, it is factually inaccurate. We all seem to conveniently forget that DM did actually speak to the police and did apparently answer their questions, and in the same manner that anyone else would if they were innocent. When LE initially questioned DM he was co-operative and helpful, from what I recall, and it wasn't until after he was arrested that he asserted his right to remain silent.

To me that part would be no different what anyone here would do, I think. They asked him questions and he co-operated. Then they arrested him and he did what any lawyer would advise him to do, which was to stop talking to LE. I really doubt that any of us would do any differently, if it was your freedom at stake and your money paying for legal advice, it would be foolish not to take your legal council's advice. But that doesn't make him automatically guilty, in my opinion.

BBM - Could you please provide a link. I recall LE going to the hangar to speak with him prior to his arrest but not while in custody. Is that what you are meaning by he cooperated? TIA.

 

[SnooperDuper]

BBM - Could you please provide a link. I recall LE going to the hangar to speak with him prior to his arrest but not while in custody. Is that what you are meaning by he cooperated? TIA.

The day police arrested Millard remains vivid in its retelling.

He woke up early to meet an accountant at his Waterloo Region-based aviation business, Millardair, an empire he inherited from his late father and grandfather.

Millard was fetching financial records for the company when two Hamilton police investigators arrived and started asking questions: His name. His acquaintances. Whether he knew about Bosma’s disappearance. And about the tattoo on his left wrist that reads “ambition.”

It was almost friendly, he recalls. A short while later, they thanked him and left.

Two hours later, while he was driving home, Millard says he was rear-ended as he idled at a red light.

When he got out of the car, he saw more than a dozen people — plain-clothed officers with protective vests — pointing guns at him.

“I was in shock. I can’t pinpoint the feelings,” he says. “It was another world.”

At the time, police charged him with robbery and forcible confinement in Bosma’s disappearance. Days later, after the discovery of Bosma’s burned body on Millard’s recently purchased farm, police added a murder charge.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...didnt_kill_tim_bosma_exclusive_interview.html

 

[swedie]

To me, the idea that a direct indictment is an indicator of how strong the crown believes their case to be just doesn't hold water. If the crown truly thought that their case was so iron clad, why would they be afraid to lay it out for the defence in a preliminary hearing? If they really thought that they had a slam dunk, why not tip their hand early and show the defence how powerless they are against the truth at the earliest convenience? That way, they could use that knowledge to convince the defendant that they really have no chance, and that they should just give in and plead guilty and save themselves and the taxpayers some money. Really, by skipping the preliminary hearing, they are removing any chance to save the taxpayers the expense of a trial.

I just don't find that to be a believable reason to skip the prelim, personally. It's illogical.

BBM - Do you really believe defense is concerned about saving tax payers money? It's about the defense earning money. The longer the case drags on, the more money they make. And why should anyone plead guilty even if they know they are? There is that slight glimmer of hope they have the accused just might get off on some pathetic technicality. MOO.

 

[swedie]

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...didnt_kill_tim_bosma_exclusive_interview.html

Yes and thank you SD that is the article I recall where DM was questioned and cooperated. I had to reread Juballee's post again. She did say it was after his arrest he failed to cooperate and talk. Again, if you have nothing to hide, hide nothing. He wasn't under the microscope while at the hangar, different scenerio at headquarters though. Obviously something he said to LE at the hangar IMO tipped them off. JMO though.

 

[ArianeEmory]

I am not easily swayed Swedie, I never judge anyone by gossip or by media, ever! I try to think outside of the box and I try not to throw stones at people, especially before knowing for sure they deserve it. I think I am more private than public, JMO

No actually I haven't been swayed at all Swedie, I still have a very unbiased view on the whole case. I still presume innocence, which is a presumption rather than a definitive position as to the outcome. If I was on the jury I would be listening intently and I would never convict anyone unless I was convinced there was no reasonable doubt. JMO

If the 'no reasonable doubt' goalpost was as far out for everyone as a few people are willing to set it for Dellen Millard, all the prisons would be empty and the criminals would be running the show. Some days I'm surprised we don't see a theory that Tim Bosma drove himself out to that farm and then tripped and fell into the incinerator.

JMO.

 

[Alethea Dice]

And who is it that claims DM maintains his right to remain silent? DP?

May 20, 2009
The young woman captured on widely publicized surveillance video walking with the Grade 3 student is allegedly a teenager just a decade older than Tori, 18-year-old Terri-Lynne McClintic. She is charged in Tori's abduction and as an accessory after the fact to murder.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-girl-who-was-hunted/article4296500/?page=all

Interesting to note TLM originally faced the same charge CN has been charged with. :what:
The accessory to murder charge against McClintic relates to helping Rafferty "on or about" April 8 escape from the city, according to the documents.

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/2009/05/20/police_search_for_toris_body.html

May 28, 2009
Terri-Lynne McClintic was arrested May 19 in Woodstock, Ont., and later appeared in court to face charges of abducting the eight-year-old schoolgirl, as well as assisting Michael Thomas C. S. Rafferty, 28, to escape the area and being an accessory to murder after the fact.

On Thursday, when McClintic and Rafferty made court appearances in Woodstock via video link, the charges against her were upgraded. McClintic, 18, now faces charges of first-degree murder and unlawful confinement.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...clintic-in-victoria-stafford-killing-1.785564

Additional charge against MR was made public via MSM January 16, 2012, during pretrial hearing.
Co-accused Terri-Lynne McClintic pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced to life in prison.

[I]Rafferty also faces an additional charge of sexual assault causing bodily harm, reported Delaney. The charge, which is listed on Rafferty's indictment, was laid in June 2010.[/I]

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/pre-trial-hea...rder-to-resume-tuesday-1.754448#ixzz3LlhwU6Ms

HTH AD.

Thanks, Swedie. I do remember all the changes in charges at the beginning. I thought from your first comment that you meant her charges were reduced after she confessed, when you said:

If he wasn't as involved as DM and his charges are reduced. Remember Victoria S's case, how TLM's charges were changed plus an additional charge was tacked onto MR's charges, sexual assault causing bodily harm.

So her "confession" didn't really get her anything - no reduced charge, no less time - only an extra charge for him and maybe a little extra attention.

JMO

 

[Sillybilly]

In post #731 I see I made reference to robyn's post when it was swedie's post.

My apologies :blush: .. too late to edit