Verdict: GUILTY for both Millard and Smich of 1st degree murder

[marymcd]

Who was the blonde lady who showed up for Millard?

Could it be his mother????

When the older gentleman that was a former employee of Millardair showed up to support Millard at MB's request, I thought it must be someone related in some way to MB who is there at her request as well, maybe to support him in her absence.

 

[SnooperDuper]

When the older gentleman that was a former employee of Millardair showed up to support Millard at MB's request, I thought it must be someone related in some way to MB who is there at her request as well, maybe to support him in her absence.

I think she is just a Bible-thumper that took on the cause of supporting society's unlovables.

 

[Inspector_North]

I find it hard to take that squishy, silly-putty face seriously. And is he even old enough to be the head of anything more than the he-man woman haters clubhouse?

I take him serious. He sold at least two murder weapons IMO. Imagine what he will be up to when he grows up?

We know he had ties to access these weapons, and most likely the criminal connections to have the 'print' changed on all those dirty little girls he sold.

MOO

 

[lauriej]

-----snipped---


The jury selection process in Canada apparently has a feature that I only learned about recently (and I can't find the news item from the Star, though someone else may know), but a judge in Toronto was recently censured (or something) for overruling the usual process (that I never heard of) whereby the first two jurors selected for a panel sit in on the selection of the third and can overrule that selection if for some reason they feel the juror is unsuitable. Then THOSE two most recently selected sit in on the selection of the next one, and so on down the line. The judge in the media report was rebuked for not allowing this process in a particular trial and this objection was upheld. I wish I had saved the article and don't have the right search terms to locate it. But, it would be a further safeguard against a person being selected who would be too much of a "lone ranger" type and be an obstacle to arriving at a unanimous verdict. I'd be interested find out more about how this works.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6...r-cases-may-be-retried-due-to-judge-s-errors/

At least four murder cases may be retried due to judge's errors

--snip--

Retired Superior Court Justice Eugene Ewaschuk, who declined to comment for this story, presided over the four trials. At issue is the centuries-old method used in Canadian courtrooms to select a jury when the Crown or defence makes a "challenge for cause," which often means determining whether the jurors are able to judge the accused without bias.


Prior to 2008, the only way to do that was to select two names from the jury pool, who become known as the "triers." They then listen to a prospective juror being asked whether they can decide the case without bias and then approve them to sit on the jury based on the response.
Once the two triers have found a prospective juror to be impartial, and as long as the Crown and defence take no issue with that person, he or she becomes a sworn member of the jury and takes the place of one of the two triers.


The process of questioning the next potential juror is repeated using the remaining trier and juror No. 1 as triers. Once approved, the second juror takes the place of the remaining trier. There are now two sworn members of the jury and the two original triers are dismissed.

--more@link

 

[Inspector_North]

I think she is just a Bible-thumper that took on the cause of supporting society's unlovables.

Nope! Reports are that the rabbit asked him to attend. His words to the media hinted he was doing it out of respect he had for at least one of the elder Millard's. He didn't seem to be a Dellen supporter as much as a family supporter asked to do a difficult task. Show support for pure evil.

MOO

 

[Errrr]

There will almost certainly be an afterword/update to later editions, but beyond that, I honestly don't know.

I would feel the story to be so incomplete without the LB and WM cases leading up to it! An afterword is just not enough.

 

[Ontario Mom]

bbm....... If that were indeed the fact, I dare say that trial by jury would have already been eleminated from the system. It is 'unsettling' to me that you would make such a bold and sweeping statement. Was that meant to include the jury in this case??
Jurors are screened for unreasonable bias before they are chosen to serve.....if a juror cannot be objective they are eliminated early on in the process.

I think a real good example of the general public willing to assume guilty until proven innocent, is the recent public reaction to the horrible cases of the baby and the gorilla, and the baby and the gator. On so many MSM links and social media links, SO many people were ready, willing and able to throw the parents under the bus, that actually became a secondary story of it's own in both cases. I'm not saying this jury went in already determined to bring back a certain verdict. Not at all. But the general public? Yes, many many many of them will react this way. Just yesterday I saw a local MSM FB post about this case and the comments under it were unbelievable. Overwhelmingly, they were actually bashing this jury for not coming back in an hour with 2 murder 1 verdicts.

moo.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Well, there's certainly some truth to that. But reading the comments section of the Toronto Star or Sun for any period of time is enough to make one's confidence in democracy a bit shaky (until you realize, as per Churchill, paraphrasing an earlier anonymous maxim, "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried "). Individuals can certainly be very opinionated, prejudiced and repulsed by details of particularly unsavoury, despicable crimes. In addition, a great many criminal defendants are unlikable "scumbags" to normal citizens.

The question is, can opinionated individuals consciously set aside their biases or preconceptions when called upon to serve on a jury and collectively come to a decision based on the facts presented? I believe that evidence shows that for the most part, they can. I had opportunity to communicate with two who served on the jury in well-known, separate highly publicized and brutal cases. Neither, of course, shared any details of their deliberations (which would have been illegal), but each said, in his own words, that he took very seriously the judge's charge to disregard any opinions formed during the trial, personal revulsion at the accused or their character, and to carefully consider the evidence, as a group and with discussion, to arrive at a just verdict. This may be difficult to do, but I am confident that most jurors do exactly that.

In this trial, the jurors had four months to get to know each other. They couldn't discuss the case or evidence with each other during their lunch or "legal arguments" breaks. They could talk about their families, interests, passions, share memories and experiences, and so on, so that by the time they came to deliberate, they had a working relationship with each other. This undoubtedly facilitated their being able to go over the evidence carefully and deliberately. I know from various work experiences that arriving at decisions is much more readily accomplished when the group has a working relationship among the individuals concerned, as opposed to a group of complete strangers.

The time they took (4-5 days) is not IMO indicative of any dissension, holdouts or whatever; it is an average length of time for a complex case where the evidence is very strong in one direction but where there are possible interpretations that need hashing out, and the jurors feel an obligation to go over all the evidence.

The jury selection process in Canada apparently has a feature that I only learned about recently (and I can't find the news item from the Star, though someone else may know), but a judge in Toronto was recently censured (or something) for overruling the usual process (that I never heard of) whereby the first two jurors selected for a panel sit in on the selection of the third and can overrule that selection if for some reason they feel the juror is unsuitable. Then THOSE two most recently selected sit in on the selection of the next one, and so on down the line. The judge in the media report was rebuked for not allowing this process in a particular trial and this objection was upheld. I wish I had saved the article and don't have the right search terms to locate it. But, it would be a further safeguard against a person being selected who would be too much of a "lone ranger" type and be an obstacle to arriving at a unanimous verdict. I'd be interested find out more about how this works.

BBM

Yes, this is a fascinating and very little known fact about our jury selection process here in Canada. I actually witnessed this in a case I followed at 361 University Ave. in Toronto a few years back. I was amazed ... Had never heard of it before, and I can't for the life of me remember the terminology used for those two people from the jury pool who have a say in the jury selection process. Those two people were supposed to watch a potential juror look at the accused while saying they could be impartial, and make a decision as to whether said potential juror was acceptable or not. Haven't worded this very well, I know. I will continue to search. Also, if I am not mistaken, this happens in other commonwealth countries' justice systems.

MOO

ETA: It is known as the Triers Process or Mini Jury. Here is a bit of info ... Looking for more. I don't understand why we, as citizens, know so little about this, lol ...

https://www.nji-inm.ca/index.cfm/pu...challenges-for-cause-procedure/?langSwitch=en

2.2 Challenges for Cause – Procedure
Download Word Print
Note[1]

(Last revised June 2012)

[1] It is fundamental that a fair, impartial, and unbiased jury try any person charged with a criminal offence. As part of the jury selection process, each prospective juror will be asked (a) question(s) about whether (e.g., publicity, notoriety, bias) would affect their ability to judge (NOA) impartially. This is called “challenge for cause”. Here is what will happen.

[2] The clerk will select at random two individuals who will decide whether a potential juror is impartial. These two individuals, called “triers”, will take an oath, and I will explain their duties to them.

[3] The clerk will then select the numbers of ______(e.g., 20) potential jurors, who will come forward when their numbers are called. They will be asked one by one to take a seat in the witness box, take an oath or affirmation, and answer (a) question(s). The question(s) will not pry unduly into your privacy. Each person will be asked the same question(s).

[4] I will then instruct the triers. They will decide whether the prospective juror has opinions about the case that they cannot set aside and that would prevent them from reaching a verdict based solely on the evidence at trial.

[5] Once the triers have found a person to be acceptable, either counsel may still challenge that person. If not challenged, that person will then be sworn in by the clerk and will sit as a juror.

[6] When the first juror is sworn, he or she will replace the first trier. As subsequent jurors are sworn, they will replace the triers who preceded them.[2]


There are also "static triers" and "rotating triers".


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Errrr]

It was meant to include those who doesn't wait to see the evidence before drawing conclusions. Innocent until proven guilty means just that "Who" that includes is all relative. We've seen this time and again. Not just in this case. The jury pool is screened as we all know, but the fact they need to be reminded not to make a conviction based on emotion, and the fact the crown closes with a emotional argument shows the courts are well aware people do give into their emotions. People are not robots. JMO

Skewing opinion goes in both directions. That's why the phony up-prep by MS for the trial. I think it was proven effective too.
I think DM thought he was already sufficiently preppy. Haha

 

[otto]

I assume they didn't all just walk into the jury room and say, well, their both guilty. I could be wrong about that, but I doubt it.
Other posters have said, if you disagree in the jury room, that you'd feel pressure to go with the majority and you'd be hated for speaking out.
Is that a fact? I'm not sure. I suppose anything is possible.
I would like to believe they all feel they made the right decision, I wouldn't be able to live with myself personally if I did something just because I felt pressured.
But not everyone is strong willed, and not everyone stands up for themselves and their beliefs. So it's hard to say

As someone who did not follow any discussion of the case, and simply caught some of the news updates, I had no doubt that both should be convicted. It sounds like Mark Smich, on the witness stand, presented as someone deserving of sympathy and leniency; that he had a convincing story. However, at the time of murdering Tim Bosma, he was all in, and we can't forget that his story contradicted other witness testimony. He participated in the abduction, murder, and incineration of Tim Bosma. I am convinced that if either man was found not guilty, it would be a free pass for them to continue murdering people.

I highly doubt that any members of the jury were so uncertain of their own opinion that they relied on others to make decisions for them.

 

[palisadesk]

But as for MS, he was a different level of creep. I think DM saw that in him and the two of them fed off each other in a really twisted way.

Yes, I think they were somehow a duo with an evil synergy. I never got a handle on MS myself - I missed several weeks of the trial where he was cross-examined and before that where a lot of the text evidence about him was discussed. So beyond being certain he was guilty of murder, I had no opinion and don't see the point in piecing it together now (had too many work commitments to follow as closely as I would have liked). I missed all the excitement about the verdict coming down yesterday when I was on the road and didn't learn the news till I got home. I was prepared for either M1 or M2, but am confident the jury has done its duty well. I did think that Dungey is sincere in his apparent conviction that MS is less guilty than DM, at least that was my impression, that it went beyond being a lawyer committed to doing his best for his client. If it's true, then either there's more to MS than I supposed, or MS is more skilled at manipulating people than I supposed. Either way, I never got a read on him.

I did think though that billandrew may have nailed it perfectly with his post here:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Weekend-Discussion-18&p=12622754#post12622754

He incorporates a couple of themes that struck me from the beginning. One was the "thrill" aspect. Though the resemblance to the Loeb/Leopold case is superficial, I thought the "thrill" feature was a common element to some degree at least. The other was billandrew's explication of the psychological juncture of these two deviant individuals from very different backgrounds. I want to quote the whole thing, but will recommend everyone to read it if they missed it (it's short) and I'll just snip this bit:

What a twisted duo they were: DM, the psychopath willing to do anything for his own gain, and MS, the willing partner who secretly hungered for violence. DM was the master manipulator out to build his empire of vehicles, properties, women, and adventures, and Mark -- or as he preferred to be called, "Murk" -- became his secret weapon....<snip> As DM did with everyone else in his life, he recognized a quality in MS and took advantage of it for his own gain. In exchange for MS's allegiance, DM opened the door for him to make his fantasies a reality, using his wealth to acquire the tools they would need along the way: guns, ammo, incinerator, and more..

Though some "partnerships in crime" are sexually driven, as in PB/KH, others are intertwining of the strengths, needs, weaknesses and depravities of the two partners. I think that's what we see in this case.

I thank billandrew not only for this cogent explication, but for all his work on organizing the facts and evidence. His drawing attention to the video evidence in particular about the RAM sightings was helpful to me, not because I thought it essential, but because it spoke to my personal experience with the area, and made me carefully examine MS's testimony for fabrications. I think billandrew's interpretation of those sightings is/was the most likely correct one.

 

[MsSherlock]

I think you mean LB.

No I meant Carl Millard or Wayne Millard- if they were alive, I believe that they would have been in Court at some point during the trial and definitely during the verdict/sentencing. I find it very peculiar that the only direct relative of Dellen would not be in court for even one day. I'm sure it would have been difficult considering her role in assisting her son breach the "do not contact" list, but IMHO, the inability of a mature person to muster up the courage to attend the proceedings left me feeling further contempt for her parenting skills. That's why I believe that either Wayne or Carl would have made an appearance. Madeleine could have gotten a couple friends to flank her- the court would never have allowed any harm to come to her. She could have covered herself like the CN and mom. I'm sure she had her reasons, but when we consider that we just saw the sentencing of an obvious psychopath, I can't help but think the "hands off", self absorbed parenting DM received greatly assisted in his distorted development. Even at the end of Dellen's own life as a free man, at the time he met his fate as handed down by a Jury of his peers, Mom was still nowhere in sight.

I guess one of the most important things we can do as parents is make sure we hold our own children accountable- regardless what stage in life they're at along with being there with them in their times of need- regardless if it's good, bad or ugly. I feel sorry for the young Dellen- maybe, just maybe if the young DM had had a normal run of the mill childhood where money didn't flow freely, and parents understood that parenting meant love, guidance and discipline, even in the event of a divorce, none of this would ever have happened. The absence of MB's during these entire proceedings indicates to me that she is much more concerned about her personal welfare than ever facing the reality of what her son has done and the world he stole away from an innocent family. MOO

 

[redwing7225]

It was hilarious. CN was kept a little busy deleting some well deserved comments from her instagram photos <sarcasm on> the poor little dear <sarcasm off>.

There is a way to make insta private, one would think if she didn't want the intrusion of privacy she would do just that...private the account

 

[Variant]

Well, there's certainly some truth to that. But reading the comments section of the Toronto Star or Sun for any period of time is enough to make one's confidence in democracy a bit shaky (until you realize, as per Churchill, paraphrasing an earlier anonymous maxim, "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried "). Individuals can certainly be very opinionated, prejudiced and repulsed by details of particularly unsavoury, despicable crimes. In addition, a great many criminal defendants are unlikable "scumbags" to normal citizens.

The question is, can opinionated individuals consciously set aside their biases or preconceptions when called upon to serve on a jury and collectively come to a decision based on the facts presented? I believe that evidence shows that for the most part, they can. I had opportunity to communicate with two who served on the jury in well-known, separate highly publicized and brutal cases. Neither, of course, shared any details of their deliberations (which would have been illegal), but each said, in his own words, that he took very seriously the judge's charge to disregard any opinions formed during the trial, personal revulsion at the accused or their character, and to carefully consider the evidence, as a group and with discussion, to arrive at a just verdict. This may be difficult to do, but I am confident that most jurors do exactly that.

In this trial, the jurors had four months to get to know each other. They couldn't discuss the case or evidence with each other during their lunch or "legal arguments" breaks. They could talk about their families, interests, passions, share memories and experiences, and so on, so that by the time they came to deliberate, they had a working relationship with each other. This undoubtedly facilitated their being able to go over the evidence carefully and deliberately. I know from various work experiences that arriving at decisions is much more readily accomplished when the group has a working relationship among the individuals concerned, as opposed to a group of complete strangers.

The time they took (4-5 days) is not IMO indicative of any dissension, holdouts or whatever; it is an average length of time for a complex case where the evidence is very strong in one direction but where there are possible interpretations that need hashing out, and the jurors feel an obligation to go over all the evidence.

The jury selection process in Canada apparently has a feature that I only learned about recently (and I can't find the news item from the Star, though someone else may know), but a judge in Toronto was recently censured (or something) for overruling the usual process (that I never heard of) whereby the first two jurors selected for a panel sit in on the selection of the third and can overrule that selection if for some reason they feel the juror is unsuitable. Then THOSE two most recently selected sit in on the selection of the next one, and so on down the line. The judge in the media report was rebuked for not allowing this process in a particular trial and this objection was upheld. I wish I had saved the article and don't have the right search terms to locate it. But, it would be a further safeguard against a person being selected who would be too much of a "lone ranger" type and be an obstacle to arriving at a unanimous verdict. I'd be interested find out more about how this works.

The jury selection process involves "triers" who are selected jury members who decide on the selection of subsequent jury members. I described the process on WS earlier when the jury was being selected for this trial.

Here is a reference to an appeal, that also provides more information on trier processes:

http://www.advocatedaily.com/oca-decision-highlights-the-nuts-and-bolts-of-jury-selection.html

I was in a jury pool for a murder trial last year where the traditional "rotating triers" process was used, and I assume it was used for this trial. In the jury selection I was involved in several potential jurors who were approved by both the defence and prosecution were rejected by the triers. Note that this is different from the rules others have posted, as the triers had the final decision on the juror, after, not before the defence and Crown lawyers.

 

[SnooperDuper]

I'll tell you why I think MS is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I simply ignore all the testimony on everything that happened between SB and WDB's sighting of TB, MS and DM leaving TB's drive, up to the point that they were registered on the hangar video.

That's because we have 3 wildly different stories about what when on in that period, all three can't be right, and there's no way to know the truth.

If you only consider the evidence outside of the test drive itself, MS is clearly guilty. He knew of a plan to steal a truck. We now know that there were 2 guns. And he didn't shy away from helping DM before, by his own account during (licence plates, driving the Yukon) and after the crime. And they hung out and called each other that week after, and when DM was in trouble, he turned to MS in a 50 minute powwow while he wouldn't be clear with anyone else on what was going on.

I have no trouble with his sentence and I hope he gets another 25 years to parole added on after the LB trial.

 

[Typhoo1961]

No I meant Carl Millard or Wayne Millard

So the CN in your earlier post was a typo when you really meant CM.

 

[Tiggertoo]

There is a way to make insta private, one would think if she didn't want the intrusion of privacy she would do just that...private the account

Narcissist

 

[Webulls]

As someone who did not follow any discussion of the case, and simply caught some of the news updates, I had no doubt that both should be convicted. It sounds like Mark Smich, on the witness stand, presented as someone deserving of sympathy and leniency; that he had a convincing story. However, at the time of murdering Tim Bosma, he was all in, and we can't forget that his story contradicted other witness testimony. He participated in the abduction, murder, and incineration of Tim Bosma. I am convinced that if either man was found not guilty, it would be a free pass for them to continue murdering people.

I highly doubt that any members of the jury were so uncertain of their own opinion that they relied on others to make decisions for them.

What's obvious now is that the jury never fell for Smich's act (and obvious lies). The moment he said he couldn't remember where he "buried" the gun, he lost all credibility. Zero.

Funny, had he come clean about the gun's whereabouts, his story might just have been believable. Fatal mistake to play stupid on the stand.

 

[Webulls]

DM - Guilty of First Degree Murder
MS - Guilty of First Degree Murder


Sounds so good to hear. Repeat over and over and you'll find it sounds even better

 

[Inspector_North]

What's obvious now is that the jury never fell for Smich's act (and obvious lies). The moment he said he couldn't remember where he "buried" the gun, he lost all credibility. Zero.

Funny, had he come clean about the gun's whereabouts, his story might just have been believable. Fatal mistake to play stupid on the stand.

He most likely knew that was a possibility, but revealing the gun(s) location would have been worse. I don't think he had any other option but to pull a 'seaenn'.

MOO