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

[Sillybilly]

I understand all that (I think ). But weren't we trying to determine if the defense has the opportunity to challenge or appeal the "direct" indictment (proceeding to trial without a preliminary trial? Whether the defense had any say in, or could attempt to stop, the direct indictment thereby allowing the preliminary hearing to happen?

Going back to your 2 earlier links that we discussed and reversing their order:

Kruselaw says the prosecution can't be challenged when "asking for the direct indictment"
Toronto Star says there is no opportunity to appeal the decision

If we can rely on either/both articles in that regard, then the defence cannot challenge the process during which the Crown is seeking and being granted the direct indictment, and they cannot appeal the resulting decision. In which case, I think their only option would be relying on a Motion to Dismiss, failing which they're locked into trial.

Will keep sleuthing on it to see if I can find something more definite (articles with real specifics on the process seem to be scarce, if they exist at all).

 

[swedie]

Respectfully, Snooper, the process is not a game. It ain't 'im vs the coppers. Of course police investigation continues in most cases (although, truth to tell, it does appear to grind to a halt once they've tossed a suspect into the hoosegow.) The Crown is free to accept or discard whatever investigatory evidence LE provides. If you are accused of a serious crime, you are entitled to full disclosure from the Crown of both the charge(s) (initially) and the evidence against you, (at several points along the way) in order that you may mount a full defense. This is a right guaranteed you by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The victims, sadly, are deceased. The charges have nothing to do with them. You are the accused. You are not exempted from the right to defend yourself, however heinous the charges against you may be. MO. In this case we've found several averted requests and delays associated with the Crown's disinterest or inability to provide disclosure. (I'll find the links, yet again, if necessary, but they've been posted here before.) It is that factor, in particular, that I find most perplexing about these lengthy arrests.

Arguably, we've been playing quite loosely with the Charter over the past decade or so, IMO. Nevertheless, it exists. Sooner or later we may again realize its essential value in insuring a free, open and just society. MOO. IMHO. etc.

Just trying to help Sillybilly find some information related to direct indictments and I found this FYI. HTH Carli. Lots of information to do with Navigating the Canadian Criminal Justice System: A Guide for Victims if anyone is interested. It is a PDF file so google the bold and italicized quote I posted ^^and download if one so desires. Unfortunately not much information on DI though. MOO.

163. Who is considered a victim?
The National Parole Board (NPB) defines a victim as:
· Someone who was harmed by a crime or who suffered physical or emotional damage as the result
of a crime, or
· Where the victim is deceased, ill or otherwise incapacitated, the person's spouse, an individual who
is cohabiting, or was cohabiting at the time of the person's death, with the person in a conjugal
relationship, having so cohabited for a period of at least one year, any relative or dependant of the
person, or anyone who has in law or fact custody or is responsible for the care or support of the
person.

 

[Sillybilly]

Did CN try to help someone escape or is it still just an allegation? Did she conceal or destroy remains? Was she there in the truck? Sorry I don't see anything that supports this, do you have any links?

If, as the Crown stated, the charge against her is related to her having tried to help him escape, that constitutes "accessory after the fact". She didn't have to help conceal or destroy remains.

Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-7.html

Accessory after the fact

23. (1) An accessory after the fact to an offence is one who, knowing that a person has been a party to the offence, receives, comforts or assists that person for the purpose of enabling that person to escape.

 

[swedie]

Did CN try to help someone escape or is it still just an allegation? Did she conceal or destroy remains? Was she there in the truck? Sorry I don't see anything that supports this, do you have any links?

I provided the links of what CN was charged with.

I did not specify one particular person in my comparatives. My list could apply to any of the accused; DM, MS or CN. HTH.

This is what I said:
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.

 

[Arnie M]

Did CN try to help someone escape or is it still just an allegation? Did she conceal or destroy remains? Was she there in the truck? Sorry I don't see anything that supports this, do you have any links?

Do you think the arrest of CN was a mistake ? ... Or just a publicity stunt ? ... Or what ?

 

[matou]

Noudga's bail info is under publication ban. She was also the topic of your first questions on here after joining. So no, we don't have any links. JMO

 

[Tamarind]

I provided the links of what CN was charged with.

I did not specify one particular person in my comparatives. My list could apply to any of the accused; DM, MS or CN. HTH.

This is what I said:
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.

I read what you said, it was the comparatives that weren't comparable IMO, I think only one appears to have any similarity and that is so far based on allegation. JMO Time will tell IMO

 

[Tamarind]

Noudga's bail info is under publication ban. She was also the topic of your first questions on here after joining. So no, we don't have any links. JMO

Sorry for repeating myself, I don't keep a track of what my posts discussed, especially my first questions or anyone elses, so if you have said you dont have any links, then you don't have any links. Who is the 'we' you are referring to? Maybe someone else has some?

 

[SnooperDuper]

Doesn't it make sense to have all your investigating done before you arrest someone? Otherwise why not just run up and arrest anyone who looks like the suspect and switch prisoners later. Surely they investigated the TB case fully before coming to the conclusion, that DM was the prime suspect? If not, then why on earth did they arrest him? On a hunch?

No...in this case, where a serial killer is involved, you want to get them off the street ASAP.

I really don't think anyone cares what the suspect LOOKS like. Everyone understands these days that eyewitness testimony is not reliable. I am sure data from electronics, and DNA are ultimately what is going to matter.

By the time DM was arrested, they knew where the call to TB had originated, and no doubt they had picked up a bunch of other info that pointed at MS and DM (remember, DM was questioned about his associates on the 10th, so they were on to people he knew, too)

Kudos to LE for getting DM off the streets ASAP.

I think they are grieving family members, if you want to call them victims thats ok but then so are MB and the rest of MS/DM's family, they are obviously victims of the fall out from this case to date. IMO

LB and TB are dead, and their families grieve them. They can never speak to LB or TB again.

MS and DM's family just have to drive down to the jail to visit them. [modsnip]. MB probably sees more of her son now that he locked up and somewhere she can find him, than she has in years.

I don't think these situations are remotely comparable.

You can't help but wonder at the large number of people involved in these crimes...6 people facing charges in relation to the 3 deaths. It makes you feel like almost everyone DM knew and was covering for him. 6 people knew? How many other people knew, or heard rumours, or had inklings? How many other people were covering for DM? And we should call them VICTIMS? How about co-conspirators!

 

[SnooperDuper]

Did CN try to help someone escape or is it still just an allegation? Did she conceal or destroy remains? Was she there in the truck? Sorry I don't see anything that supports this, do you have any links?

CN is charged, which is an allegation. So, if facing 25 years in prison is "just an allegation"...it is what it is.

She could have concealed or destroyed remains, or not, we don't know, but it is a possibility. There is no proof that she did not.

LE had been looking for 3 suspects and ruled out CN. Then a year later, they arrested her. Was that a LE ploy, so say they were no longer looking for a third person, when they arrested one? Were there really 3 suspects all along? CN apparently did not get involved until May 9, 2013, the date of her charge. This is the day after the truck ended up in Kleinburg. Maybe CN had something to do with the missing seats, the next day? I.e., I don't think CN is linked to the truck IMO but it is a possibility. There is no proof that she is not involved.

 

[Tamarind]

No...in this case, where a serial killer is involved, you want to get them off the street ASAP.

They hadn't charged him with WM and LB when he was arrested so how would they be thinking they were getting a serial killer off the streets?

I really don't think anyone cares what the suspect LOOKS like. Everyone understands these days that eyewitness testimony is not reliable. I am sure data from electronics, and DNA are ultimately what is going to matter.

But did they have that in hand when he was arrested? I hope so, I expect the defense will be building a timeline based on the disclosure.

By the time DM was arrested, they knew where the call to TB had originated, and no doubt they had picked up a bunch of other info that pointed at MS and DM (remember, DM was questioned about his associates on the 10th, so they were on to people he knew, too)

But the phone was 'burner' so who does it belong to? How were they on to the people he knew? From a tattoo?

Kudos to LE for getting DM off the streets ASAP.

That would apply only if he is a murderer.

LB and TB are dead, and their families grieve them. They can never speak to LB or TB again.

MS and DM's family just have to drive down to the jail to visit them. [modsnip] MB probably sees more of her son now that he locked up and somewhere she can find him, than she has in years.

Respectfully I think that is shortsighted and compounded by the boo hoo hoo but JMO and I am still to be convinced that LB is deceased. JMO

I don't think these situations are remotely comparable.
You can't help but wonder at the large number of people involved in these crimes...6 people facing charges in relation to the 3 deaths. It makes you feel like almost everyone DM knew and was covering for him. 6 people knew? How many other people knew, or heard rumours, or had inklings? How many other people were covering for DM? And we should call them VICTIMS? How about co-conspirators!

Interesting thought, what if DM was forced to cover for them? just another way of looking through the lens. With so many allegedly involved it makes for a few possibilities IMO.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Direct Indictments are most frequently used where:

a preliminary inquiry would be unreasonably costly, complex or long, or would be inappropriate because of the nature of the issues or the evidence;

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadi...ice/Informations_and_Indictments#cite_note-31

See, the nature of the evidence is that it is "good", "strong", of a format the court appreciates (accurate, precise, authoritative, etc.) so there is no need to prove the nature of the evidence in a preliminary hearing.

 

[Tamarind]

CN is charged, which is an allegation. So, if facing 25 years in prison is "just an allegation"...it is what it is.
She could have concealed or destroyed remains, or not, we don't know, but it is a possibility. There is no proof that she did not.

No proof either way then? That's my point.

LE had been looking for 3 suspects and ruled out CN. Then a year later, they arrested her. Was that a LE ploy, so say they were no longer looking for a third person, when they arrested one? Were there really 3 suspects all along? CN apparently did not get involved until May 9, 2013, the date of her charge. This is the day after the truck ended up in Kleinburg. Maybe CN had something to do with the missing seats, the next day? I.e., I don't think CN is linked to the truck IMO but it is a possibility. There is no proof that she is not involved.

Maybe maybe maybe, still no proof IMO At the beginning LE said there were three people, they also said a second vehicle was following. That was apparently incorrect. If they are saying CN became involved on the 9th May, she was not there on the night of the test drive. Who was following? Anyone? The possibility that people unknown at this point were involved is probable IMO.

 

[Tamarind]

See, the nature of the evidence is that it is "good", "strong", of a format the court appreciates (accurate, precise, authoritative, etc.) so there is no need to prove the nature of the evidence in a preliminary hearing.

Not according to this case:

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

 

[SnooperDuper]

They hadn't charged him with WM and LB when he was arrested so how would they be thinking they were getting a serial killer off the streets?

But did they have that in hand when he was arrested? I hope so, I expect the defense will be building a timeline based on the disclosure.

But the phone was 'burner' so who does it belong to? How were they on to the people he knew? From a tattoo?

Well it is time for you to think deeply, Tamarind. Re: the burner phone, if I called you on the phone, it it relevant or any defense to say I don't own that phone? I only need access to it in order to use it; I don't need ownership. However I need access or ownership to get into various Etobicoke locations where the phone was mapped to. I might also look at phones that use the same cell towers at the same time to ID phones that are travelling with the burner phone. No tattoos involved.

LE knew the crime they were investigating was very serious, at the time. They deserve credit for getting the public what it wants: a fast arrest, and charges that have stuck for 19 months with no challenge.

That would apply only if he is a murderer.

Yep, so I will say it again, kudos to LE for getting DM off the streets ASAP.

Respectfully I think that is shortsighted and compounded by the boo hoo hoo but JMO and I am still to be convinced that LB is deceased. JMO

Just pointing out, LE is convinced that she is deceased, take that info under advisement.

Interesting thought, what if DM was forced to cover for them? just another way of looking through the lens. With so many allegedly involved it makes for a few possibilities IMO.

No, that's not interesting, that's uh, well...why would DM sit for 19 months in solitary to cover for people whose crimes have already been uncovered? I mean, their cover is blown. There is no point in covering for these people. It's all out there in the open. So why would DM be forced to cover for them?

In a case of murder, it is no defense to say you were forced, anyway. GUILTY!!!

 

[SnooperDuper]

No proof either way then? That's my point.

Maybe maybe maybe, still no proof IMO At the beginning LE said there were three people, they also said a second vehicle was following. That was apparently incorrect. If they are saying CN became involved on the 9th May, she was not there on the night of the test drive. Who was following? Anyone? The possibility that people unknown at this point were involved is probable IMO.

If the all of the facts that were available on this case were available to everyone, we could make judgements about whether there is proof or not, but just because we are on the outside, does not mean there is no proof.

In fact, there is a lot of proof, in order to meet the standards of the justice system.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Not according to this case:

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

Yes, in this case, the DI did not occur on the grounds of good evidence. So your link is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.

 

[Archangel7]

So....if a DI causes a sooner court date wouldn't DM and Co. be thrilled? I mean it would guarantee sooner than later he can tell his STORY and the sooner his angelic, innocent self can get out of jail right? So why the heartburn over a DI?

On the questions about sequence of arrest, investigation, etc..........
Some crimes are direct evidence in the sense that for example the Cop SAW you speeding. You're charged(arrested) and have a court date to challenge/defend.

Some crimes are direct evidence but it takes some sleuthing/investigation to find evidence that ties that person to that crime event and that evidence. Generally "Probable Cause" is the term and standard used to obtain arrest through a sworn affidavit laying out the evidence, known at that time, to a Judge/Magistrate to prove why you are going to arrest whom and for what..

The Judge approves and the Cops arrest and charge the individual. They then continue to refine their evidence through continued investigation(remember they do sometimes discover exculpatory evidence during investigations) until they present a solid case to the DA/Crown or release the accused on lack of evidence. Or perhaps the Crown saw a problem with how the evidence was discovered and knows it won't be allowed in court.

I believe the heartburn is because DP thought he was driving this show, would have basically a dress rehearsal/pretrial/prelim where he could see how the Crown played their hand on all evidence and then he could build a specific defense against their specific attack.

Well.........the Crown went DI, likely because they feel they have good evidence and apparently they do, because the Courts agreed with the Crown.

The accused is guaranteed a fair court trial under law. However, the accused is not allowed to be pretried over and over again until he can finally manufacture an unbeatable defense and that sounds like what DP was counting on.

No wonder defense lawyers like playing golf so much.....they get "do overs" and "mulligans" on every hole. Not hard to be good at golf like that.

 

[SnooperDuper]

So I guess the grounds on which TB's case went to DI was that there was "good evidence", based on all the possible ways a case can go to DI, and the AG's comments.

Now you can make a sports analogy here. Oh ladies, don't get irate, we'll go with figure skating. A skater can have a good program full of triple and quadruple Salchows and Axels and all that, and in practice the skater can pull them all off. The skater has a proven track record that allows them to go ahead and present their program in competition. They have a "good program" and everyone can see that this is the kind of program that can win the competition. However, in order to do so, they will have to make all of their jumps, so winning isn't a given.

What can the defense (other competitors in the competition) do in order to win in this challenge? Well, they can give a better performance with no faults or falls; they can lose and come back and challenge all the errors the winner made in their skating program, or they can go out of arena and whack the competition in the knee (and face the later consequences).

So when "there is good evidence that the person being accused will become convicted", it's like saying, "there is a good skating program that the skater will be able to execute". All out hopes are riding on you, Patrick Chan. So why are some so darned worried that Chiddy is going to come out on top? I mean, is Chiddy that so darned great that everyone has to fear that he is going to blow the competition out of the water? Because people seem to fear Chiddy's got it in the bag.

A DI is like Chiddy skipping the practice skate before competition. He's not showing anyone what he's got, but it hurts him a bit too, as he doesn't have a chance to flex his muscles and try things out one last time. Is skipping the practice skate/DI a big deal if its already known that there is a strong program/evidence and the actual performance is the only thing that counts?

 

[Sillybilly]

Respectfully I think that is shortsighted and compounded by the boo hoo hoo but JMO and I am still to be convinced that LB is deceased. JMO

Could you please explain what you mean by the bolded part ^^. Thanks !!