Suspect #1: Dellen Millard *Charged* 1st Deg Murder 15 May 2013 #1

[Blomquist]

Not at all. When remains and stolen vehicles appear on the personal property of someone who has been identified by two witnesses as being involved in two different test drives one in which a man was murdered and the truck stolen, those "appearances" aren't deceiving at all. They are pretty straight forward. If you are prone to using common sense.

MOO

Or if you are prone to believing everything you read and everything you see without thinking for just one moment that quite possibly ''all is not as it appears to be"

 

[gimme sugar]

Yes it is funny to me that MS was charged with 1st degree murder but not forcible confinement...when the forcible confinement charge is what led LE to charge DM with 1st degree murder. So does that mean MS is charged with 1st degree murder because he was with DM, or because LE believe that the crime was premeditated now, or...??? I spent some time searching the articles on MS's arrest and it seems LE gave no justification for the 1st degree murder charge: they just announced it and that was it

Don't forget, they can add charges, at their next court date, as many as they want. These, by law, in Canada, must be made public. If there are more charges to be added, I could see LE doing a PC.

It could be, that they could only charge MS, with murder one, due to annoucing TB's death. They can't add a 'forcible confinement' charge, as they could have something to PROVE that DM forcibly confined TB, but not that MS did.

 

[gimme sugar]

I see what you're saying also. The fact that DM chose not to say anything in the 15 hours or so after being brought in for questioning prior to being arrested and charged is the reason why we are not hearing anything now either. If he had professed his innocence from the get go, or requested his lawyer be present before he professed his innocence and indicated that he had no idea what the heck was going on, then it's possible we'd still be hearing that story from him now via his attorney. Especially if he had still been arrested even after being given the opportunity to have his attorney present during questioning and giving LE a solid alibi. Apparently he has not requested an interview with LE with his attorney present. His attorney has advised him to stay silent and that is what he chooses to do "for the long haul". But it's his choice and his alone. He had every right to say anything he wanted, he just chose not to. He still chooses not to, even in the face of all the negative commentary regarding him in the media and on social media. Although his attorney has made an attempt to discredit some of that.

Looking at the evidence that was found since his interrogation and subsequent arrest, it makes perfect sense why he chose to say nothing at the beginning and continues to maintain his silence. Because he likely knew what evidence was out there that could possibly be found and tied straight back to him. Which indicates that LE have likely arrested at least one correct person in this crime based on the witness accounts, the evidence found and his inability to clear himself with a solid alibi right from the beginning.

MOO

We also have to ASSUME that they are both staying silent. Just because LE haven't done a PC, or MSM hasn't reported anything, or their lawyers for that matter... doesn't mean that they are staying silent. One or both could be talking and working out a deal. One or both could be talking and more charges will be added. It could be in LE OR DM/MS's best interest for the public to *think* they are staying silent, but in fact, aren't. MOO

 

[Blomquist]

Don't forget, they can add charges, at their next court date, as many as they want. These, by law, in Canada, must be made public. If there are more charges to be added, I could see LE doing a PC.

It could be, that they could only charge MS, with murder one, due to annoucing TB's death. They can't add a 'forcible confinement' charge, as they could have something to PROVE that DM forcibly confined TB, but not that MS did.

Or they can also drop charges and go for a main charge.

 

[Blomquist]

We also have to ASSUME that they are both staying silent. Just because LE haven't done a PC, or MSM hasn't reported anything, or their lawyers for that matter... doesn't mean that they are staying silent. One or both could be talking and working out a deal. One or both could be talking and more charges will be added. It could be in LE OR DM/MS's best interest for the public to *think* they are staying silent, but in fact, aren't. MOO

The last line here makes absolute sense to me....for a few reasons...

 

[SteveP]

My take is that no amount of evidence will ever be enough for some people. Thankfully, those people will probably never be selected to be on a jury. JMO

 

[gimme sugar]

LE would probably have been interrogating him before he asked to call a lawyer. Perhaps not though ... he may have said right out the gate "I want to call a lawyer". (Even then, I think they can continue to interrogate until the cows come home or until the lawyer says "this interview is over").

As for a cell and nobody to talk to, all he has to do is say to a guard "call the detectives ... I'm ready to talk".

Both in America and in Canada, once the accused asks for a lawyer, all questioning is stopped, unless a lawyer allows questioning, but can advise his client stays silent. They can drill him all they want, with his lawyer present (if the lawyer and accused allows), or if the lawyer has not returned contact yet. Depending on what time they arrested DM, it could have taken time to get representation and they can drill him, until his lawyer is appointed.

 

[gimme sugar]

Or they can also drop charges and go for a main charge.

Exactly.

 

[canadiangirl]

My take is that no amount of evidence will ever be enough for some people. Thankfully, those people will probably never be selected to be on a jury. JMO

We hope!

 

[SnoopCat]

My take is that no amount of evidence will ever be enough for some people. Thankfully, those people will probably never be selected to be on a jury. JMO

The judicial process requires an acquittal of charges to be based on a lack of evidence and/or reasonable doubt. To arbitrarily dismiss the evidence currently connecting TB's death to DM (based on what we know so far) because there is a remote possiblity he is innocent, is not reasonable.

 

[Snoofo]

Don't forget, they can add charges, at their next court date, as many as they want. These, by law, in Canada, must be made public. If there are more charges to be added, I could see LE doing a PC.

It could be, that they could only charge MS, with murder one, due to annoucing TB's death. They can't add a 'forcible confinement' charge, as they could have something to PROVE that DM forcibly confined TB, but not that MS did.

Could it be that maybe nobody could positively i.d.MS as arriving on the driveway due to red hood pulled up? Could that affect confinement charge?

I do find it odd since MS would likely have been doing the forcible confinement if for sure DM was driving. Or does driver engaging car locks count even if it doesnt sound violent?

 

[gimme sugar]

Could it be that maybe nobody could positively i.d.MS as arriving on the driveway due to red hood pulled up? Could that affect confinement charge?

I do find it odd since MS would likely have been doing the forcible confinement if for sure DM was driving. Or does driver engaging car locks count even if it doesnt sound violent?

SB could identify both. If DM engaged the car locks, that can count, yes.

 

[canadiangirl]

SB could identify both. If DM engaged the car locks, that can count, yes.

Correct me if I'm wrong but speed could be used as well I believe although it'd be tough to prove.

 

[Blomquist]

My take is that no amount of evidence will ever be enough for some people. Thankfully, those people will probably never be selected to be on a jury. JMO

People that have already decided that someone is guilty should NEVER be a juror. In fact I believe that is a prerequisite to being a juror. This might explain why courts find it so hard to find unbiased jurors these day as so many people have been swayed by media and the like, before ever getting to court and hearing actual facts.

 

[SteveP]

People that have already decided that someone is guilty should NEVER be a juror. In fact I believe that is a prerequisite to being a juror. This might explain why courts find it so hard to find unbiased jurors these day as so many people have been swayed by media and the like, before ever getting to court and hearing actual facts.

That is a valid point, and I agree. I do feel however, that a firm understanding of REASONABLE doubt should also be a necessity. A juror can have doubt, and most probably do. But that doubt must be reasonable for them to render a verdict of not guilty. JMO

 

[Blomquist]

We hope!

I don't believe we have seen or heard all the evidence yet... that is what a trial is for. It takes more than a few cups of flour to bake a cake.

 

[gimme sugar]

People that have already decided that someone is guilty should NEVER be a juror. In fact I believe that is a prerequisite to being a juror. This might explain why courts find it so hard to find unbiased jurors these day as so many people have been swayed by media and the like, before ever getting to court and hearing actual facts.

It's also often why they will fly in jurors from more remote locations/outside of the province, or question them specifically, being elusive with details, to see how much they know, if anything.

 

[canadiangirl]

I don't believe we have seen or heard all the evidence yet... that is what a trial is for. It takes more than a few cups of flour to bake a cake.

I agree. However I also agree with jurors having a firm understanding of reasonable doubt. Jmo

 

[Blomquist]

That is a valid point, and I agree. I do feel however, that a firm understanding of REASONABLE doubt should also be a necessity. A juror can have doubt, and most probably do. But that doubt must be reasonable for them to render a verdict of not guilty. JMO

Reasonable is subject to interpretation by each juror. If a juror wishes to acquit then I don't believe they should be forced to go along with the others, which is what sometimes happens. It defeats the purpose of a jury.

 

[Blomquist]

I agree. However I also agree with jurors having a firm understanding of reasonable doubt. Jmo

I do not believe jurors should be told what reasonable means... If a juror feels uncomfortable about going with guilty / not guilty then they should go with how they feel and not forced by others.