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

[Tamarind]

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.



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



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



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!!!

Yes I do realize that is your opinion, thank you.

 

[SnooperDuper]

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

https://www.google.ca/search?q=shortsighted+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=qNmNVNT2D8_5yQSUuIC4DA
https://www.google.ca/search?q=compounded+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=f9mNVJioFoW0yASdhYDgDA

I think that lacks imagination and intensified the negative aspects of boo hoo hoo?

I did a manual Google Translate.

I do agree you have to have a lot of imagination to imagine DM as a victim.

 

[swedie]

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.

BBM - No proof to the general public you mean I believe the Crown could prove otherwise.

It's a possibility CN was the third person but maybe at some point after leaving TB's house CN was dropped off somewhere before the murder happened and she had no clue what transpired until May 9th. Maybe she received a text from one of the accused telling her to take DM's truck and go home. That's the problem, WE don't know all the evidence yet BUT LE and the Crown do and that is why the Crown and the AG believes there is a strong enough case to head right to trial bypassing the PH. That is why DM and MS still sit in jail and no else on TB's murder. Do you believe DM would really take the fall for someone else, forced into lying for them? To me that is totally laughable. JMO though.

 

[SnooperDuper]

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?

<snip>

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.

To go back to the skating analogy, DP wants to see what the Crown has because he needs to know how much spin he has to come up with...does he have to perform three or four (high risk) quadruple Axels to come up with a story as good as what the Crown has put together?

LE and the Crown are at a disadvantage because they have to investigate to try to put together what happened.

DP/DM OTOH have a huge advantage because all they have to do is tell the truth. They don't have to remember a story or make up a story that fits, they just have to tell the truth, and after all, that is the easiest path.

If they are just going to tell the truth, and substantiate that truth, they don't have to give a thought as to what the Crown is going to come up with. DM's truth will be fully documented by DP, and clearly show DM's activities over the period in question.

 

[Sillybilly]

https://www.google.ca/search?q=shortsighted+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=qNmNVNT2D8_5yQSUuIC4DA
https://www.google.ca/search?q=compounded+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=f9mNVJioFoW0yASdhYDgDA

I think that lacks imagination and intensified the negative aspects of boo hoo hoo?

I did a manual Google Translate.

I do agree you have to have a lot of imagination to imagine DM as a victim.

Thanks snooper, but I do know what the individual words mean, I would just like Tamarind to explain specifically how the term "boo hoo hoo" factors into the context of their post.

 

[Carli]

Who is representing DM in the TB case?

 

[SnooperDuper]

Who is representing DM in the TB case?

If you Google DM lawyer, you get the name DP, and an excerpt from the biographical Toronto Star article on him. If that's incorrect, you can report it.

 

[Carli]

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.

Yes, quite correct. "Victims" of murder do include the deceased person's significant other and his or her legal dependents (excepting where one or other of those individuals is charged with committing the crime.)

 

[Alethea Dice]

Thanks snooper, but I do know what the individual words mean, I would just like Tamarind to explain specifically how the term "boo hoo hoo" factors into the context of their post.

My guess would be that SnooperDuper's comment was disparaging enough to the family of the accused and the snipped part of the post just made it worse. I was a little surprised to see that the accused's family is now also being accused of being co-conspirators. How the original comment has now turned into DM being a victim, I have no idea, since Tamarind's post that was being replied to was about DM and MS's families.

JMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

My guess would be that SnooperDuper's comment was disparaging enough to the family of the accused and the snipped part of the post just made it worse. I was a little surprised to see that the accused's family is now also being accused of being co-conspirators. How the original comment has now turned into DM being a victim, I have no idea, since Tamarind's post that was being replied to was about DM and MS's families.

JMO

Well the math went like this:

SB and family are victims of (??? evil) because TB has been killed
LB's family are victims of (??? evil) because LB has been killed
DM's family are victims of DM's behavior, that guilty or innocent, put him in jail for 19 months
MS's family are victims of MS's behavior, that guilty or innocent, put him in jail for 18 months

Not really the same thing

 

[Alethea Dice]

If you Google DM lawyer, you get the name DP, and an excerpt from the biographical Toronto Star article on him. If that's incorrect, you can report it.

The last we heard in September, was that DP was not on the record yet as DM's lawyer in Superior Court. That was probably corrected by now, but we've heard no confirmation as far as I know.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4869422-bosma-murder-trial-set-for-fall-2015/

 

[Alethea Dice]

Well the math went like this:

SB and family are victims of (??? evil) because TB has been killed
LB's family are victims of (??? evil) because LB has been killed
DM's family are victims of DM's behavior, that guilty or innocent, put him in jail for 19 months
MS's family are victims of MS's behavior, that guilty or innocent, put him in jail for 18 months

Not really the same thing

No, it's not the same thing. But it also doesn't make them co-conspirators or deserving of belittling or reproach.

JMO

 

[Carli]

Well the math went like this:

SB and family are victims of (??? evil) because TB has been killed
LB's family are victims of (??? evil) because LB has been killed
DM's family are victims of DM's behavior, that guilty or innocent, put him in jail for 19 months
MS's family are victims of MS's behavior, that guilty or innocent, put him in jail for 18 months

Not really the same thing

Well, not meaning to split hairs but... if we agree that formal "victims of crime" are those as defined in the earlier link and to whom a number of victim services are or can be made available, then

SB and her daughter are victims of crime, being spouse and dependent.
LB's parents are not victims of crime because LB was an independent adult.
DM's family (i.e. his mother) is not a victim of crime, pursuant to the death of WM, because she was neither a spouse or a dependent.
MS's family is not a victim of crime.

 

[Carli]

The last we heard in September, was that DP was not on the record yet as DM's lawyer in Superior Court. That was probably corrected by now, but we've heard no confirmation as far as I know.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4869422-bosma-murder-trial-set-for-fall-2015/

Exactly. We also know that DM is not being represented by DP in regard to the WM and LB charges. As far as I've read, the formalities required by the Superior Court are neither unusual or particularly daunting or unusually time consuming. Has DP been fired by his client?

... Or is it a case of cut and run, despite DP's protestations in the linked article. Has he off-loaded his client in the expectation that there isn't enough available cash there to foot his next bill?

Quoted from the above link:

While he was on the record for Millard when the matter was in the jurisdiction of the Ontario Court of Justice, once the case was committed to trial, it became a Superior Court matter. That means Paradkar must once again officially be retained by his client. That has not yet happened, even though it has been 10 weeks since it was announced that the attorney general had ordered a direct indictment, sending the case straight to trial without a preliminary hearing.
Paradkar says money is not an issue for Millard, who is the heir to his murdered father's aviation dynasty, and he expects to be on the record by the beginning of November.
"It has nothing to do with finances," says Paradkar. "It's really because of the direct indictment."
Meanwhile, however, the court process could be slowed if Millard does not officially have a lawyer who can make decisions on his behalf. And if it turns out Paradkar is not retained after all, it would mean introducing a whole new defence counsel to a case that has been ongoing since May 2013.

 

[SnooperDuper]

No, it's not the same thing. But it also doesn't make them co-conspirators or deserving of belittling or reproach.

JMO

No this is where we began:

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

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!

I'm not addressing those comments to family members. How is that reproach, or belittling them? I am talking about any of DM's associates that knew what was going on.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Well, not meaning to split hairs but... if we agree that formal "victims of crime" are those as defined in the earlier link and to whom a number of victim services are or can be made available, then

SB and her daughter are victims of crime, being spouse and dependent.
LB's parents are not victims of crime because LB was an independent adult.
DM's family (i.e. his mother) is not a victim of crime, pursuant to the death of WM, because she was neither a spouse or a dependent.
MS's family is not a victim of crime.

Just to back to
Swedie's great post:

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.

SB and her daughter are victims of crime, being spouse and dependent.
LB's parents are victims of crime because LB was "any relative or dependant of the person"
DM's family (i.e. his mother) is not a victim of crime, pursuant to the death of WM, because she was neither a spouse or a dependent or "any relative or dependant of the person"
MS's family is not a victim of crime.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Exactly. We also know that DM is not being represented by DP in regard to the WM and LB charges. As far as I've read, the formalities required by the Superior Court are neither unusual or particularly daunting or unusually time consuming. Has DP been fired by his client?

Quoted from the above link:

While he was on the record for Millard when the matter was in the jurisdiction of the Ontario Court of Justice, once the case was committed to trial, it became a Superior Court matter. That means Paradkar must once again officially be retained by his client. That has not yet happened, even though it has been 10 weeks since it was announced that the attorney general had ordered a direct indictment, sending the case straight to trial without a preliminary hearing.
Paradkar says money is not an issue for Millard, who is the heir to his murdered father's aviation dynasty, and he expects to be on the record by the beginning of November.
"It has nothing to do with finances," says Paradkar. "It's really because of the direct indictment."
Meanwhile, however, the court process could be slowed if Millard does not officially have a lawyer who can make decisions on his behalf. And if it turns out Paradkar is not retained after all, it would mean introducing a whole new defence counsel to a case that has been ongoing since May 2013.

Maybe this is a sign that DM intends to plead guilty?

 

[Juballee]

Is it just my imagination, or is it that every time someone make a valid point, the discussion is immediately sidelined by ridiculous debates such as the mean of the word 'victim'?

I think it's fair to say that we all have our our scale of victimization and our own feelings about who falls where, but according to what I have learned, here at WS the families of the suspects are treated with the dignity that befalls other victims of senseless crimes whose lives have been ripped apart though no fault of their own.

And it doesn't hurt to have a little sympathy towards others, in my opinion.

 

[Alethea Dice]

No this is where we began:



I'm not addressing those comments to family members. How is that reproach, or belittling them? I am talking about any of DM's associates that knew what was going on.

Yes, I know where it began. But you skipped the part that Tamarind was replying to, which was also the part I was referring to.

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.

Since your next comment was about co-conspirators and covering for DM, I assumed you were still talking about the same people. You said:

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!

The only people being called victims were the family, not the other accused.

JMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

A recap:

I'm sorry, I thought of the families of the deceased as victims of crime, I guess you would like me to call them something else?

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

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.

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!

Somehow, in my view, the word "victim" has been extended to anyone who knew DM and MS.

MS and DM's friends and family are not victims of crime. They are victims of DM and MS. They are not victims of crime. It is their choice to associate with these people. They may be victims of judgement, but they are not victims of crime.