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.

Respectfully, I never think on command, deeply or otherwise! The phone, Regardless of who may have owned it, it apparently had no registered owner. I am also presuming that they have no audio of any calls and no witness to any texts that may have been written. Even with audio it would not be a simple task to identify if the caller/receiver didn't identify themselves. All the phone gives us the location mapping from cellphone towers, it does not give us pictures of the caller or texter. JMO If I am wrong and the ability to take pics by burners at random is a probabilty I would like to see the evidence. TIA

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.

They may have known of a serious crime, but the charges have stuck for 19 months because the system is backed up and already passed the acceptable time frame for a speedy trial IMO, not because it proves the accused to be guilty. JMO. You are free to repeat whatever you like, I will reserve any credit until I get the facts. HTH

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

Sorry I cant do that. I always maintain presumption of innocence until real facts emerge.

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?

So many possibilities, and I only have limited time to spend posting on a forum. I have answered this before HTH

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

He hasn't said he was forced has he? Self preservation may be a possibility, like I said so many possibilities, so little posting time, sorry.

 

[Carli]

Just to back to
Swedie's great post:



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.

Yes, I already agreed SB and her daughter are victims. However, regretfully, LB's parents, while undoubtedly wracked with grief, are unfortunately not considered "victims" under the law, so far as I can tell. I believe this was discussed earlier when a concern was expressed that SB appeared to be receiving updates on the prosecution case whereas LB's parents seem all but cut out of the loop in regard to the case against their daughter's alleged killers. The fact is LB was no longer a dependant of her parents nor were her parents dependant upon LB. Ergo, they are not "victims" in law and not eligible for victim's services which (may) include receiving limited information about the case.

The relevant Ontario legislation can be found in the "Victim's Bill of Rights"
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_95v06_e.htm

"“victim” means a person who, as a result of the commission of a crime by another, suffers emotional or physical harm, loss of or damage to property or economic harm and, if the commission of the crime results in the death of the person, includes,(a) a child or parent of the person, within the meaning of section 1 of the Family Law Act, and
(b) a dependant or spouse of the person, both within the meaning of section 29 of the Family Law Act;
but does not include a child, parent, dependant or spouse who is charged with or has been convicted of committing the crime. (“victime”) 1995, c. 6, s. 1; 1999, c. 6, s. 65 (1, 2); 2005, c. 5, s. 72 (1, 2)."

The cited section of the Family Law Act, online at states as follows

"29. In this Part,
“dependant” means a person to whom another has an obligation to provide support under this Part; (“personne à charge”)
“spouse” means a spouse as defined in subsection 1 (1), and in addition includes either of two persons who are not married to each other and have cohabited,
(a) continuously for a period of not less than three years, or
(b) in a relationship of some permanence, if they are the natural or adoptive parents of a child. (“conjoint”) R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 29; 1999, c. 6, s. 25 (2); 2005, c. 5, s. 27 (4-6); 2009, c. 11, s. 30."

and further defines a dependant child in a related paragraph

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90f03_e.htm#BK35

Obligation of parent to support child
31. (1) Every parent has an obligation to provide support for his or her unmarried child who is a minor or is enrolled in a full time program of education, to the extent that the parent is capable of doing so. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 31 (1); 1997, c. 20, s. 2.
Idem
(2) The obligation under subsection (1) does not extend to a child who is sixteen years of age or older and has withdrawn from parental control. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 31 (2).

 

[Tamarind]

A recap:



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 judement, but they are not victims of crime.

recap

In my view anyone who is affected by any tragic circumstance is a victim. I was not referring to any link that may or may not consider all. Victims of circumstance IMO means all victims who are not perpetrators of the tragic circumstance. That will include DM and MS IF there are found to be innocent. HTH. I didn't realize I had to spell everything out for it to be fully understood. My apologies, I will make sure I speak simpler in future.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Respectfully, I never think on command, deeply or otherwise! The phone, Regardless of who may have owned it, it apparently had no registered owner. I am also presuming that they have no audio of any calls and no witness to any texts that may have been written. Even with audio it would not be a simple task to identify if the caller/receiver didn't identify themselves. All the phone gives us the location mapping from cellphone towers, it does not give us pictures of the caller or texter. JMO If I am wrong and the ability to take pics by burners at random is a probabilty I would like to see the evidence. TIA

The phone was registered to a fake name, which means someone filled in a form by hand, or a form by computer leaving their IP, or a form by mobile leaving cell tower data, or registered by a landline tying the phone to a residence. So it's not that there was no registered owner: to the contrary, someone registered it.

You don't actually need a witness to any texts that are written as telecom companies typically store texts that are sent from phones for years. Phones are designed to be a personal device. They act as wallets and bank cards and the paradigm in cell phone development is 1 phone 1 user. If you can track a pattern to a cell phone (e.g., only known to have made calls from DM's house and CN's house) you can deduce the identity of the user.

They may have known of a serious crime, but the charges have stuck for 19 months because the system is backed up and already passed the acceptable time frame for a speedy trial IMO, not because it proves the accused to be guilty. JMO. You are free to repeat whatever you like, I will reserve any credit until I get the facts. HTH

Indeed! can I have a link please?

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.

So many possibilities, and I only have limited time to spend posting on a forum. I have answered this before HTH

Yes it does: the truth is you've got nothing, absolutely nothing, to counter that.

He hasn't said he was forced has he? Self preservation may be a possibility, like I said so many possibilities, so little posting time, sorry.

Should we care about the self preservation of serial murderers and criminals?

 

[SnooperDuper]

Yes, I already agreed SB and her daughter are victims. However, regretfully, LB's parents, while undoubtedly wracked with grief, are unfortunately not considered "victims" under the law, so far as I can tell.

They're not related to LB? Was she adopted? Wouldn't the adoption process ensure LB was legally related to her family? Or a natural birth, wouldn't that make her related to her parents?

Juballee, I am feeling what you said.

I believe this was discussed earlier when a concern was expressed that SB appeared to be receiving updates on the prosecution case whereas LB's parents seem all but cut out of the loop in regard to the case against their daughter's alleged killers. The fact is LB was no longer a dependant of her parents nor were her parents dependant upon LB. Ergo, they are not "victims" in law and not eligible for victim's services which (may) include receiving limited information about the case.

The relevant Ontario legislation can be found in the "Victim's Bill of Rights"
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_95v06_e.htm

"“victim” means a person who, as a result of the commission of a crime by another, suffers emotional or physical harm, loss of or damage to property or economic harm and, if the commission of the crime results in the death of the person, includes,(a) a child or parent of the person, within the meaning of section 1 of the Family Law Act, and
(b) a dependant or spouse of the person, both within the meaning of section 29 of the Family Law Act;
but does not include a child, parent, dependant or spouse who is charged with or has been convicted of committing the crime. (“victime&#8221 1995, c. 6, s. 1; 1999, c. 6, s. 65 (1, 2); 2005, c. 5, s. 72 (1, 2)."

The cited section of the Family Law Act, online at states as follows

"29. In this Part,
“dependant” means a person to whom another has an obligation to provide support under this Part; (“personne à charge&#8221
“spouse” means a spouse as defined in subsection 1 (1), and in addition includes either of two persons who are not married to each other and have cohabited,
(a) continuously for a period of not less than three years, or
(b) in a relationship of some permanence, if they are the natural or adoptive parents of a child. (“conjoint&#8221 R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 29; 1999, c. 6, s. 25 (2); 2005, c. 5, s. 27 (4-6); 2009, c. 11, s. 30."

and further defines a dependant child in a related paragraph

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90f03_e.htm#BK35

Obligation of parent to support child
31. (1) Every parent has an obligation to provide support for his or her unmarried child who is a minor or is enrolled in a full time program of education, to the extent that the parent is capable of doing so. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 31 (1); 1997, c. 20, s. 2.
Idem
(2) The obligation under subsection (1) does not extend to a child who is sixteen years of age or older and has withdrawn from parental control. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 31 (2).

So LB's parents ceased to be her parents after she was killed? What am I missing?

 

[Tamarind]

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

Those demeaning three little words were in the quoted post by SnDoo, which implied that MB and family had no right to be affected by the charges or called victims. Thankfully it was rightfully snipped by the mod IMO. HTH

 

[SnooperDuper]

Those demeaning three little words were in the quoted post by SnDoo, which implied that MB and family had no right to be affected by the charges or called victims. Thankfully it was rightfully snipped by the mod IMO. HTH

Well you know what they say about victims of crime. They're heroes. TB is a hero. LB is a hero.

And what, exactly, is DM?

 

[Carli]

They're not related to LB? Was she adopted? Wouldn't the adoption process ensure LB was legally reated to her family? Or a natural birth, wouldn't that make her related to her parents?

Juballee, I am feeling what you said.



So LB's parents ceased to be her parents after she was killed? What am I missing?

In a failed effort to introduce the legal definition of "victim" to this discussion, I cited the relevant passages from the Ontario "Victim's Bill of Rights" and from the Ontario Family Law Act which provides the supporting legislation. If you choose to misinterpret or misunderstand the basic definitions then I'm at a loss as to how to explain further.

 

[SnooperDuper]

In a failed effort to introduce the legal definition of "victim" to this discussion, I cited the relevant passages from the Ontario "Victim's Bill of Rights" and from the Ontario Family Law Act which provides the supporting legislation. If you choose to misinterpret or misunderstand the basic definitions then I'm at a loss as to how to explain further.

Definitions

1. In this Act,

“crime” means an offence under the Criminal Code (Canada); (“acte criminel&#8221

“victim” means a person who, as a result of the commission of a crime by another, suffers emotional or physical harm, loss of or damage to property or economic harm and, if the commission of the crime results in the death of the person, includes,

(a) a child or parent of the person, within the meaning of section 1 of the Family Law Act

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_95v06_e.htm

“child” includes a person whom a parent has demonstrated a settled intention to treat as a child of his or her family, except under an arrangement where the child is placed for valuable consideration in a foster home by a person having lawful custody; (“enfant&#8221

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90f03_e.htm#BK1

Yes, thank you, it is totally clear to me now that LB was the child of her parents, and that her parents are victims of her murder.

 

[Tamarind]

The phone was registered to a fake name, which means someone filled in a form by hand, or a form by computer leaving their IP, or a form by mobile leaving cell tower data, or registered by a landline tying the phone to a residence. So it's not that there was no registered owner: to the contrary, someone registered it.

yes SOMEONE did, they registered it to a non existent no-one !!

You don't actually need a witness to any texts that are written as telecom companies typically store texts that are sent from phones for years. Phones are designed to be a personal device. They act as wallets and bank cards and the paradigm in cell phone development is 1 phone 1 user. If you can track a pattern to a cell phone (e.g., only known to have made calls from DM's house and CN's house) you can deduce the identity of the user.

Yes we have been through the cellphone descriptions before. You can only assume the identity, without proof you can only speculate. IMO

Indeed! can I have a link please?

I think the links are backed up too, I am still waiting for several.

Yes it does: the truth is you've got nothing, absolutely nothing, to counter that.

The truth is you have no idea what possibilities I may be implying and without that knowledge your statement is redundant ! JMO

Sould we care about the self preservation of serial murderers and criminals?

We should care about the preservation of the presumption of innocence and the preservation of the rights of ALL at all times IMO.

 

[Tamarind]

Well you know what they say about victims of crime. They're heroes. TB is a hero. LB is a hero.

And what, exactly, is DM?

No as a matter of fact I don't know what they say about victims of crime. I shall reserve judgement at this time insofar as anyone else is concerned. HTH

 

[Carli]

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_95v06_e.htm



http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90f03_e.htm#BK1

Yes, thank you, it is totally clear to me now that LB was the child of her parents, and that her parents are victims of her murder.

So is it your understanding that in the Province of Ontario no person legally becomes an adult until their parents or guardians pass away? This could explain some things. MOO.

 

[SnooperDuper]

The truth is you have no idea what possibilities I may be implying and without that knowledge your statement is redundant ! JMO

Sorry, "it goes without saying, the truth is you've got nothing, absolutely nothing, to counter that." Is that better?

 

[SnooperDuper]

So is it your understanding that in the Province of Ontario no person can legally become an adult until their parents or guardians pass away? This could explain some things. MOO.

I am sorry, I searched both links for the keyword "adult" and I got no hits. Do you have a link?

ETA: it does not say "minor child" is says "child"

 

[SnooperDuper]

No as a matter of fact I don't know what they say about victims of crime. I shall reserve judgement at this time insofar as anyone else is concerned. HTH

If DM and MS are victims of their own crimes, why did they commit those crimes?

 

[Tamarind]

Sorry, "it goes without saying, the truth is you've got nothing, absolutely nothing, to counter that." Is that better?

Not really, but I am not bothered by it, so it's ok

 

[SnooperDuper]

Not really, but I am not bothered by it, so it's ok

Yes I find the truth satisfies everyone.

 

[Tamarind]

if dm and ms are victims of their own crimes, why did they commit those crimes?

what !!!!!!

 

[Carli]

I am sorry, I searched both links for the keyword "adult" and I got no hits. Do you have a link?

ETA: it does not say "minor child" is says "child"

Yes, I see that. Interesting. Yet surely it's implied, given that the Family Law legislation being cited primarily deals with issues of child custody and support. Surely it's not the intention of the courts to require lifetime long child maintenance support payments to be provided by divorced parents into the adult and even married lives of their "children". Nationally, the CRA won't allow parents to claim child expenses for able bodied kids over the age of 18 unless they were being supported full time at universities. Anyway, sorry to drift OT here. Then why WAS it that LB's parents have been and apparently still remain with almost no information into the investigation of their daughter's alleged murder or even confirmation about the location of their "child"s body?

OK, still looking for applicable definitions

Here's Duchaime who seems to equate child with Minor

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/Child.aspx

As to what constitutes an adult, maybe we need look at Ontario's "Age of Majority and Accountability Act" to wit a person who is not a minor.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90a07_e.htm

 

[Tamarind]

Yes I find the truth satisfies everyone.

But first you have to find it.