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

[Alethea Dice]

...who faces 2 direct indictments. Don't forget that part.

Aren't INNOCENT VICTIM and HERO synonymous in our culture? TB and LB are heroes.

Canada Honors Shooting Victim, Hero

http://www.wsj.com/articles/photos-canadian-parliament-shootings-1414000486

Man killed in Alta. village 'a hero,' father says

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2014/10/04/21986836.html

Drowning victim called a hero

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Canada/Ottawa/ID/2497285210/

Moncton shooting: Family of fallen officer says he ‘died a hero’

http://globalnews.ca/news/1378018/moncton-shooting-identities-of-fallen-rcmp-officers-released/

Remembering a hero and victim

http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2013/05/17/remembering-a-hero-and-victim/

Um, I hate to disillusion you, but these are all people who were killed protecting others or in the line of duty. I'm not seeing the relevance or connection.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

FWIW, in Canada, a child becomes an adult at 18 years of age. At that time, they are protected under privacy laws and no one, not even their parents, can be informed of any of their medical information, school marks, etc., without their permission. "Next of kin" only comes into it when the adult child dies without a will or is incapacitated without a power of attorney for personal care. Then it's governed under the Ontario Succession Law Reform Act which specifies the order of the next of kin. Otherwise, the adult child's "next of kin" is whoever they name it as - for emergency contact, who can make decisions for them if needed, and who inherits their estate.

http://legalline.ca/legal_answers/ontario/wills_and_estates/wills/what_happens_if_you_die_without_a_will_.html

http://www.cmha.ca/mental_health/family-support-common-questions/#.VI5QDyvF9Og

A note on privacy
Under Canadian law, an adult’s health care team can’t talk about medical information like a diagnosis or treatment in most situations without permission of the adult.

In any event, I'm glad we all agree that LB's parents are entitled to be kept informed of the progress of the investigation.

JMO

 

[Archangel7]

Do we KNOW yet who is representing whom? I can foresee some sticky legal confidentiality and privilege issues, given the attorneys and the accused involved as I know them. May be why DP is in the wings. JMO

I would assume the attorneys are/will avoid this but who knows. I believe I could come up with a lineup that would create some interesting legal scenarios. IMO

Purely speculation at this point.

 

[Carli]

FWIW, in Canada, a child becomes an adult at 18 years of age. At that time, they are protected under privacy laws and no one, not even their parents, can be informed of any of their medical information, school marks, etc., without their permission. "Next of kin" only comes into it when the adult child dies without a will or is incapacitated without a power of attorney for personal care. Then it's governed under the Ontario Succession Law Reform Act which specifies the order of the next of kin. Otherwise, the adult child's "next of kin" is whoever they name it as - for emergency contact, who can make decisions for them if needed, and who inherits their estate.

http://legalline.ca/legal_answers/o.../what_happens_if_you_die_without_a_will_.html

http://www.cmha.ca/mental_health/family-support-common-questions/#.VI5QDyvF9Og



In any event, I'm glad we all agree that LB's parents are entitled to be kept informed of the progress of the investigation.

JMO

Thank you for the links, Alethea. I guess the question is, in law, are the parents of an independant adult (over 18) such as LB, still considered to be victims and do the rights of victims thereby accrue to them? By "rights" I mean the legislated access to Victim's Services of various kinds. Given the various links we've examined, I certainly don't think so. LB's parents have allegedly forever lost a precious daughter, but unfortunately,as I understand it, I don't think that gives them any special access to information or other such privileges as kin of the deceased.

 

[Arnie M]

Do we KNOW yet who is representing whom? I can foresee some sticky legal confidentiality and privilege issues, given the attorneys and the accused involved as I know them. May be why DP is in the wings. JMO

I would assume the attorneys are/will avoid this but who knows. I believe I could come up with a lineup that would create some interesting legal scenarios. IMO

Purely speculation at this point.

"Sticky" is right .... we have 3 deceased ... 3 accused (if we count CN) ... plus 3 legal teams .

Then what ?? .... 3 trials ?? ... or it could be as many as 6 trials if each case is dealt with separately .

Not to mention if all 3 accused choose to "work together" .... or will they be adversarial and try to blame each other ?

Lots of possibilities , none of which sound easy

 

[Carli]

Do we KNOW yet who is representing whom? I can foresee some sticky legal confidentiality and privilege issues, given the attorneys and the accused involved as I know them. May be why DP is in the wings. JMO

I would assume the attorneys are/will avoid this but who knows. I believe I could come up with a lineup that would create some interesting legal scenarios. IMO

Purely speculation at this point.

Given that you know these attorneys and the accused involved, as you've said, do you have any suggestions as to who might step up to represent DM in the TB case? Personally, while there were lots of MillardAir debt obligations, I don't think there has been much available cold cash available for a very long time and, from what we've read I have little doubt DP has probably already soaked up a good percentage of it. We also have no idea whether mother is even marginally interested in financing the defense effort. Do you think there may be a strong possibility that DM may choose to represent himself? Especially if the alternative is Legal Aid? Also, is it your opinion that the trial will be held in the Superior Court's South Central Region? What is your view on that? Tnx.

 

[swedie]

Regardless of LB's age and whatever debating is going on in regard to "rights and/or legalities", obviously LE felt it was imperative to keep Laura's parents informed with the investigation on their daughter. It was LE who placed the call to the Babcock's and then paid them that visit which no parents ever want to receive. MOO.

Although MB and WM were long divorced by this time, I wonder if LE also paid such a visit to MB, notifying her of WM alleged murder. Or did she learn from reading it in the MSM, did DP or her lawyer pay her a visit, call her or maybe DM informed her. Same with regards to MS. Again not the information parent hopes to receive. I doubt anyone has the answers, just thinking out loud. MOO.

Such a nightmare for all those close to this case. My heart breaks more so for LB and TB's loved ones for they are the real victims IMHO in this case. They did absolutely nothing to deserve their lives being totally turned upside down and ripped apart. Yes it is very heartbreaking also for MB and MS's parents because DM and MS are their sons who have been charged with the murders. No parent should every have to carry that burden on their shoulders for the evil and horrible deeds their adult children have done. The accused, their parents are victims at the hands of their own children. How pathetic.

Lives forever changed and not for the better. My only hope that justice is served to the maximum and by something short of a miracle, the Bosma's and Babcock's can overcome this nightmare, putting the worst behind them and once again find some happiness and peace in their lives. All MOO.

The day started for Clayton Babcock with an early phone call that police would “pop by” to see he and his wife Linda.

“We were told they were going to charge Dellen Millard with her murder,” Clayton said.

“It was still unknown if there was the location of her body,” said her dad. “They obviously have found enough evidence to feel they could lay a charge.”

A joint project of police, which includes the OPP, Toronto and Hamilton Police, now allege that Millard, 28, is in fact a serial killer — accused of three separate murders over a 10-month period.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/04/1...-for-closure-as-alleged-dellen-millard-victim

 

[Archangel7]

"Sticky" is right .... we have 3 deceased ... 3 accused (if we count CN) ... plus 3 legal teams .

Then what ?? .... 3 trials ?? ... or it could be as many as 6 trials if each case is dealt with separately .

Not to mention if all 3 accused choose to "work together" .... or will they be adversarial and try to blame each other ?

Lots of possibilities , none of which sound easy

Plus was MWJ the common thread that tied DP to DM? I'd hate to be DP with DM and or MWJ involved in the same crime.
Talk about a mess WRT possible confidentiality and privilege laws. Any chance DP has to testify under oath as a hostile witness? Who of the two(DM or MWJ) might waive attorney/client C&P?

I know I have numerous questions and I'm not up on all the Canadian rulings on such. In addition, I believe there are some ethical BAR considerations if an attorney knows the guilt and or knows of perjury.

 

[Archangel7]

Given that you know these attorneys and the accused involved, as you've said, do you have any suggestions as to who might step up to represent DM in the TB case? Personally, while there were lots of MillardAir debt obligations, I don't think there has been much available cold cash available for a very long time and, from what we've read I have little doubt DP has probably already soaked up a good percentage of it. We also have no idea whether mother is even marginally interested in financing the defense effort. Do you think there may be a strong possibility that DM may choose to represent himself? Especially if the alternative is Legal Aid? Also, is it your opinion that the trial will be held in the Superior Court's South Central Region? What is your view on that? Tnx.

I am guessing DP saw an early opportunity(coffers full) to represent DM in the first leg of proceedings and with some cognizance that he knew DM and MWJ, both of whom are now involved together in a murder.

Maybe DM came full clean with DP on all his criminal antics initially. Now DP finds himself outside looking in, due to his involvement with MWJ. He may be distancing himself hoping the Crown doesn't realize the "Big Picture" and his potential vulnerability as a witness or at least his ethical, professional, BAR mandated, obligations.

Of course, I have no inside, personal knowledge of the day to day strategies so......JMO
There are conditions that exist where there is no C&P and /or a lawyer is in a such a bad legal/ethical position to have to either step down, half-azz the defense of his client, or tip the Crown to the info.

 

[Carli]

I am guessing DP saw an early opportunity(coffers full) to represent DM in the first leg of proceedings and with some cognizance that he knew DM and MWJ, both of whom are now involved together in a murder.

Maybe DM came full clean with DP on all his criminal antics initially. Now DP finds himself outside looking in, due to his involvement with MWJ. He may be distancing himself hoping the Crown doesn't realize the "Big Picture" and his potential vulnerability as a witness or at least his ethical, professional, BAR mandated, obligations.

Of course, I have no inside, personal knowledge of the day to day strategies so......JMO
There are conditions that exist where there is no C&P and /or a lawyer is in a such a bad legal/ethical position to have to either step down, half-azz the defense of his client, or tip the Crown to the info.

What is "C&P"?

I'm not sure that prosecutors are permitted to call a defendant's defense lawyer, past or present, to be a witness. Surely the relationship between lawyer and client is and remains privileged. I could be wrong. But were this not so, then having access to a couple of lawyers would surely be of great help to investigators. In the usual run of riff raff and ne'er-do-wells occupy the criminal courts, these lawyers could just make themselves available for cheap or even pro bono, collect the goods on their client, and then quit only turning up again as witnesses for the prosecution. Somehow I don't think that to be likely. I'm not so sure about ethics either, when it comes to some lawyers. MOO. I think "conflict of interest" is the only commonly understood boundary. It does appear that DP retreated from DM shortly after the charges against the gun totin' 3Ms materialized so perhaps the possibility for conflict arose there, because he already had one of the Matthew's on his roster. Did fate short-stop DP, leaving him with less financially capable client and stepping away from the bigger bucks. Poor DP. Unless of course the 3 M's are just doorstops at the threshold of much larger contracts. MOO. IMHO. "Call Saul". LOL.

 

[Sillybilly]

I'm not sure that prosecutors are permitted to call a defendant's defense lawyer, past or present, to be a witness. Surely the relationship between lawyer and client is and remains privileged.

<rs&bbm>

Was pondering the OJ Simpson case where his lawyer/friend Kardashian initially represented him and then (spec?) was kept on the defence team possibly to avoid him being called to testify. Not sure what the law is in that respect in the US, but it does seem in Canada, it would not apply because confidentiality exists even when the lawyer is no longer representing the person:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c..._11_01_archive.html+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

The Code of Conduct for lawyers states that they must hold in strict confidence all information that was learned in the course of the professional relationship. The only time a lawyer can disclose such information is with the consent of the client or as required by law ...

The confidentiality rule continues to exist even after the lawyer no longer acts for the client ...

One interesting exception to the rule is when disclosure of information is necessary to prevent a crime. In those cases, the lawyer is allowed to reveal what they know if it could prevent a crime ...

 

[Alethea Dice]

Thank you for the links, Alethea. I guess the question is, in law, are the parents of an independant adult (over 18) such as LB, still considered to be victims and do the rights of victims thereby accrue to them? By "rights" I mean the legislated access to Victim's Services of various kinds. Given the various links we've examined, I certainly don't think so. LB's parents have allegedly forever lost a precious daughter, but unfortunately,as I understand it, I don't think that gives them any special access to information or other such privileges as kin of the deceased.

There are so many different avenues of Victim's Services, but IMO the parents would be eligible under the previously posted definition of a victim as a "relative" of the deceased.

JMO

http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/crrctns/vcmt-ssstnc-eng.aspx

 

[Alethea Dice]

What is "C&P"?

I'm not sure that prosecutors are permitted to call a defendant's defense lawyer, past or present, to be a witness. Surely the relationship between lawyer and client is and remains privileged. I could be wrong. But were this not so, then having access to a couple of lawyers would surely be of great help to investigators. In the usual run of riff raff and ne'er-do-wells occupy the criminal courts, these lawyers could just make themselves available for cheap or even pro bono, collect the goods on their client, and then quit only turning up again as witnesses for the prosecution. Somehow I don't think that to be likely. I'm not so sure about ethics either, when it comes to some lawyers. MOO. I think "conflict of interest" is the only commonly understood boundary. It does appear that DP retreated from DM shortly after the charges against the gun totin' 3Ms materialized so perhaps the possibility for conflict arose there, because he already had one of the Matthew's on his roster. Did fate short-stop DP, leaving him with less financially capable client and stepping away from the bigger bucks. Poor DP. Unless of course the 3 M's are just doorstops at the threshold of much larger contracts. MOO. IMHO. "Call Saul". LOL.

According to this, there are only a couple of exceptions to the Confidentiality and Privilege - when the safety of the public is at risk, when the innocence of an accused is at stake, and a third one regarding fees and allegations against a lawyer which depends on the circumstances.

http://www.cba.org/CBA/activities/pdf/PP-FAQs.pdf

I'm wondering why this would be a conflict. All MWJ is charged with is selling him a gun - no charges in relation to the murder other than that the gun was allegedly used. The seller of the gun wouldn't necessarily know anything about a murder committed with that gun. I don't understand why MWJ would now be technically "involved in a murder".

JMO

 

[Archangel7]

The SCOC has about 6-8 criteria for C&P and to differentiate one from another IIRC. I'm saying I can imagine a scenario where C&P are not necessarily absolute given all the accused listed so far and the attorneys involved so far.

We, or I, do not know all of what was revealed nor to whom, nor to any possible third party that may know. C&P is pretty straight forward one on one in an attorney's office(or where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists) but other than that it's not necessarily as cut and dried.

Couple that with the possible ethical dilemma of a lawyer crossing a witness in open court whom he knows is telling the truth against his client, but discrediting them, or in the end simply deciding to A) only insure a fair trial but not aggressively defending B) try everything to get his guilty client a not guilty verdict knowing he did it.

So in summary, I could see some conditions that could exist that would make this a very "sticky" process. Many possible opportunities to be legally complex from a defense standpoint. That MIGHT have an affect on who is representing whom.

AD.....I didn't mean to imply that it is a given that MWJ KNEW of a murder and thus would be a co defendant, only that I could see it as a possibility for investigators to look at and of course secondly if it played into any verbal exchange with any of our known attorneys.

 

[swedie]

"Sticky" is right .... we have 3 deceased ... 3 accused (if we count CN) ... plus 3 legal teams .

Then what ?? .... 3 trials ?? ... or it could be as many as 6 trials if each case is dealt with separately .

Not to mention if all 3 accused choose to "work together" .... or will they be adversarial and try to blame each other ?

Lots of possibilities , none of which sound easy

In one fell swoop maybe?

Forty-eight verdicts need to be rendered at the Bandidos trial once the case is put in the jury's hands.

It's the final step before the jury deliberates in the trial of six men who have each pleaded not guilty to eight counts of first-degree murder.

The bodies of eight men, all members of the Toronto chapter of the Bandidos motorcycle club, were found shot to death in vehicles left along Stafford Line not far from Shedden.

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/canada/2009/10/27/11537386-sun.html

 

[Carli]

According to this, there are only a couple of exceptions to the Confidentiality and Privilege - when the safety of the public is at risk, when the innocence of an accused is at stake, and a third one regarding fees and allegations against a lawyer which depends on the circumstances.

http://www.cba.org/CBA/activities/pdf/PP-FAQs.pdf

I'm wondering why this would be a conflict. All MWJ is charged with is selling him a gun - no charges in relation to the murder other than that the gun was allegedly used. The seller of the gun wouldn't necessarily know anything about a murder committed with that gun. I don't understand why MWJ would now be technically "involved in a murder".

JMO

What an interesting link. It does appear (on a very quick read) that unless a client consents to or expressly waives C & P, his lawyer is obligated to uphold those common law principles subject to minor provincial jurisdictional variations. Section 18 goes into the subject in greater detail.

Re MWJ, I agree but I wonder if DM and MWJ had known each other for sometime, or at least the possible link MS had known both persons for some time, and if MWJ had any inkling that the gun was to be used for some nefarious purpose (and why would he think otherwise. He doesn't appear to be the sharpest tack on the wall but at least he probably figured out that he's engaged in illegal activity in Canada and it's a fair bet the illegal gun he sold was not to used for rabbit hunting - which is probably also illegal in Mississauga, but I digress.) So I have no idea about the status of that situation. In Canada, if you illegally sell somebody an illegal weapon and that weapon is subsequently used to commit a crime, are you an accessory to that crime, even though you didn't know anything about the weapon's intended use (beyond guessing) or its actual use? I'm betting you probably are because knowingly or unknowingly you've aided in the commission of a crime, but I don't know. MOO.

There are probably far more adequate links than this, but I'm late for lunch....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)

 

[Archangel7]

Here's a good read along the lines of C&P, the difference, etc. Seems to explain it better. It is a B.C. paper but it references SCOC and Ontario.
https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/docs/practice/resources/Confidentiality-exceptions.pdf

 

[Alethea Dice]

Wouldn't accessory before the fact basically be aiding and abetting? (Not sure.) Either way, I think MWJ would have had to know a murder was planned when he sold the gun in order to be charged with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiding_and_abetting

the Crown must show that the accused had prior knowledge that "an offence of the type committed was planned", but it is not necessary that the accused desired the result or had the motive of assisting the crime. Intention to assist the crime is sufficient.

So far, we haven't heard of any accessory charges for MWJ. But if that was the case, that would bring us right back to the exceptions to confidentiality.

JMO

 

[Carli]

For sure, Alethea. But then, following on the sale, as the salesperson, you know your customer now owns an illegal gun. You know this because you have aided and abetted him in completing the illegal act of purchasing an illegal gun. So far as I can tell, MSM in the oft quoted article seems to have skirted around the precise wording of the charges against MWJ, stating that he is

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...accused-of-selling-him-alleged-murder-weapon/

"According to the Hamilton Spectator, police believe Mr. Ward-Jackson, Matthew Odlum and Matthew Jackson Wawrykiewicz, sold Dellen Millard the gun he allegedly used to kill his father. The three were charged in Toronto court two days before the new charges against Mr. Millard and Mr. Smich were announced. They have pleaded not guilty."

What LE may have cause to "believe" and what the actual charges against the M's are I don't recall having read anywhere so far.

I did read an interesting item on what happens when defense lawyers are themselves convinced that their client is guilty. In law, their duty is to counter the prosecution evidence against their client to the point of providing reasonable doubt in the minds of a majority of the jurors. We have an adversarial system. Like it or not, "justice" does not necessarily favour the side of true guilt or innocence but, instead, of most successfully presented version of the crime - that of the prosecutors or that of the defence.

So what is a lawyer's obligation if, after months of pleading his innocence of murder most foul, his client, comes into his office and lays a bloody axe on the boardroom table , saying "There you are, guv. That's the weapon I used to hack the daylights out of the SOB."

What would be the duty and expectation of the defence lawyer, at this point? (Well, apart from running away, of course.)

 

[Archangel7]

I'm just guessing on the Local LE but. A course(Training) must be taken or the "TEST" challenged to obtain a RPAL(Restricted Possession and Acquisition License) along with RCMP checks, spousal checks, no mental issues, never charged with a crime, note from Mama and other crap I probably forgot. This is just for a Saint, Holy man or law abiding Joe citizen to have a gun(pistol). Basically a lot of BS for the law abiding gun owners.....'Cause criminals don't follow the law anyway.

So...we obviously have a non RPAL selling to another? Or maybe DM had an RPAL. Either way the minimum was illegal transfer/trafficking of a restricted firearm unless it was a certain kind that is Prohibited. In addition, if DM had no RPAL he was charged as well.

I don't see LE charging Acc. before the Fact unless they have evidence he had prior knowledge or should have had prior knowledge of WM's murder.