Verdict: GUILTY for both Millard and Smich of 1st degree murder #3

[Bellers]

Wow, that guy, DM, is SO manipulative and deceitful. And thankfully, the judges, the Crown, the various lawyers, his co-accused, (and likely perhaps even his mother) all appear to be completely on to him.

[FONT=&amp]You might have missed this part: "He is close to his mother, his Attorney for Property, and she remains supportive of her son."[/FONT]

 

[musicaljoke]

[FONT=&amp]You might have missed this part: "He is close to his mother, his Attorney for Property, and she remains supportive of her son."[/FONT]

That's true, but even so, she may be fully aware of the monster that is her son.

 

[SomeITGuy]

That's true, but even so, she may be fully aware of the monster that is her son.

Even not being in court for the Bosma trial, I don't think she could be that ignorant to MSM that she not know the details. I'm really anxious to get the next trial underway, it can't come quick enough. I finally ordered myself a copy of ABro's book, found a very good deal on it (about 50% off) so I'm looking forward to a refresher before LB trial starts.

 

[Arnie M]

.

Right from the beginning I speculated that WM stumbled upon what they did to LB and was going to turn them in to police.

For someone to kill their own father is almost unheard of , but in a situation like that DM was cornered so he killed "the witness"

 

[MsSherlock]

That's true, but even so, she may be fully aware of the monster that is her son.

Oh how sweet it is to see the Judge on to both DM and his poor mommy dearest. Sorry- I've always maintained that MB was far from a victim of circumstances- IMHO, she was and continues to be an enabler extraordinaire. To think that she was sitting there on almost a mil while her son was going for legal aid! Disgusting, but certainly telling. Makes her presence at Maplegate to support DM when WM was found dead even more interesting. I'm afraid that they're both self serving sociopaths. Makes me laugh to think that she drank the night away with CN the night DM was arrested, scurrying over to Maplegate to gather up some lose cash. At least DM is locked up for good, the finances are exposed and the Judge is raising his eyebrows at MB's financial amnesia. Can't wait for the LB family to get closure and I can't believe how long DM's been able to delay this whole ordeal. MOO

 

[MsSherlock]

.

Right from the beginning I speculated that WM stumbled upon what they did to LB and was going to turn them in to police.

For someone to kill their own father is almost unheard of , but in a situation like that DM was cornered so he killed "the witness"

You don't think that maybe WM had simply cut him off of his funding? IMHO, DM didn't like having restrictions and if Dad was making him do something that he didn't want to do...like get his stuff out of the hangar and show up to work- I think he took the easy way out; pop Dad, become very wealthy and get rid of any resemblance of a real job.

 

[ILoveDateline]

Ok, I've just read the judges ruling on DMs adjournment application in it's entirety for the second time, because who doesn't like to read court filings? ABro was right, the pre-trial motions have been exciting. Up next is August 28 court date to deal with the Crown's two motions; similar fact evidence and extrinsic misconduct evidence. Pillay is to represent DM for these but DM has not yet retained a trial lawyer and only stated that "he had put certain limited contingent retainers in place, depending on the results of the adjournment Motion. He did not tell me who the lawyer or lawyers were who he had retained, on this limited contingent basis, nor did he tell me the scope of their retainers." (https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2017/2017onsc4548/2017onsc4548.html?resultIndex=1 )

Considering his adjournment was denied, what do you suppose this means? At present, DM is still unrepresented for trial. Pillay is busy, though, said he could try to free up his schedule for trial. He has been warned several times that trial is going forward as scheduled with or without counsel. Prior to the adjournment hearing, DMs efforts have been towards delaying trial and obtaining disclosure while in prison. All signs point to self-representation.

Though Pillay helped DM draft the adjournment application, he did not act for him. Is this DM testing his abilities? There are two reasons why the denied adjournment request may light a fire for him to obtain a trial lawyer, 1) there isn't enough time for him, DM, to prepare for trial all by himself and, 2) he has tried to go it alone, been denied and lost good faith in the process and, possibly, his confidence.

I still believe DM is going to try to go it alone, at least partially, at trial. I think he really wants the opportunity to talk to the court and jury. If this were a story written for film, I would say he is holding on to self-representation in the event Smich takes the stand so that he can question him, believing he can break him.

I guess we will find out more next week. I hope those rulings are published.

JMO.

 

[Bellers]

This trial is gonna be a circus...

 

[Kamille]

This trial is gonna be a circus...

Yep....just the way DM likes things. All the attention on him. And screwing with "authority" as much as possible.

MOO

 

[Velma]

On the subject of trial, admins: will we be starting a new thread within this (Timothy Bosma) section? And has anyone heard about journalists covering the trial live as they did with TB's?

 

[SnooperDuper]

Laura Babcock murder trial: What does it mean to have no body?
http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/201...-trial-what-does-it-mean-to-have-no-body.html

 

[JPC]

Laura Babcock murder trial: What does it mean to have no body?
http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/201...-trial-what-does-it-mean-to-have-no-body.html

Is there going to be a separate thread for the Babcock trial? I am having a hard time finding it


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[deugirtni]

I have tried, but I haven't been able to find an answer to whether it is allowed in an Ontario/Canadian criminal trial, for a self-reprsented accused to examine and cross examine his co-accused. I believe it is not allowed for a self-represented accused to examine his victim, however I am not sure about a co-accused? Anyone?

 

[SnooperDuper]

And has anyone heard about journalists covering the trial live as they did with TB's?

Well here's a few to watch anyway

Lisa Hepfner‏ @HefCHCHNews
In #TO for Dellen #Millard pretrial matter. Jury selection for Babcock murder starts Oct 12. Wayne Millard murder trial March 20. @CHCHNews

Alex Pierson‏ @AlexpiersonAMP
Not those trials. [MWJ/MW] But likely Babcock and Wayne Millard. But yes - independent funding for media is something u will see more of.

Alyshah Hasham @alysanmati is the court reporter for the Toronto Star and she has written and tweeted a bit on the case.

Ann Brocklehurst‏ @AnnB03 tweets updates regularly and updates on DM/MS's associates too.

Nos and not sures:

Adam Carter won't be covering the trial

Adam Carter @AdamCarterCBC
No, the CBC has decided it won't be sending me.


Liam Casey @liamdevlincasey wrote a few articles on DM up to the end of 2016. He could be on the Babcock story maybe?

Susan Clairmont @susanclairmont is providing general updates but I don't believe she will cover the trial as it is in Toronto and she is based out of Hamilton. Adrian Humphreys @AD_Humphreys and Colin Butler @ColinButlerCBC haven't tweeted about DM since the verdict. molly hayes @mollyhayes is now at the Globe and Mail now.

 

[deugirtni]

Well here's a few to watch anyway

Lisa Hepfner‏ @HefCHCHNews
In #TO for Dellen #Millard pretrial matter. Jury selection for Babcock murder starts Oct 12. Wayne Millard murder trial March 20. @CHCHNews

Alex Pierson‏ @AlexpiersonAMP
Not those trials. [MWJ/MW] But likely Babcock and Wayne Millard. But yes - independent funding for media is something u will see more of.

Alyshah Hasham @alysanmati is the court reporter for the Toronto Star and she has written and tweeted a bit on the case.

Ann Brocklehurst‏ @AnnB03 tweets updates regularly and updates on DM/MS's associates too.

Nos and not sures:

Adam Carter won't be covering the trial

Adam Carter @AdamCarterCBC
No, the CBC has decided it won't be sending me.


Liam Casey @liamdevlincasey wrote a few articles on DM up to the end of 2016. He could be on the Babcock story maybe?

Susan Clairmont @susanclairmont is providing general updates but I don't believe she will cover the trial as it is in Toronto and she is based out of Hamilton. Adrian Humphreys @AD_Humphreys and Colin Butler @ColinButlerCBC haven't tweeted about DM since the verdict. molly hayes @mollyhayes is now at the Globe and Mail now.

Wow, thanks for the update. That sucks that Adam Carter won't be attending
And I didn't realize that MH had moved to the G&M, wow, good for her! (I think???)
What about Christie Blatchford?

 

[deugirtni]

Is there going to be a separate thread for the Babcock trial? I am having a hard time finding it


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There was a LB thread which seems to have been shut down prematurely, with no explanation remaining.. maybe that one will reopen? Might be helpful to have some of the LB posts in the same thread.. but the cases seem to be *so* intertwined..

 

[deugirtni]

I think the defence is only entitled to the raw video without any interpretation.

The TB trial had 10,000 video clips http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/why-is-security-camera-video-still-so-terrible-1.2542359 and that's all we know, so there is no way to turn that into hours or terabytes and compare.

Remember what the AG said way back when re: the TB trial:

The ministry’s decision to approve the direct indictment, a first since she became attorney general earlier this year, is a sign of a solid case gathered by prosecutors, Madeleine Meilleur told reporters after question period Wednesday.

“I’m not going to speak about the case, but when this procedure is supported, it’s because there is good evidence that the person being accused will become convicted,” she said.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...arantee_verdict_in_tim_bosma_murder_case.html

I remember that.. and I am still surprised if that person never has heck to pay for saying that!

 

[SnooperDuper]

I remember that.. and I am still surprised if that person never has heck to pay for saying that!

Well isn't that what happened? IMO you can't pretend to be shocked that those two were convicted, only shocked by what exactly they did. I thought just going from the hints in the newspapers that this was a slam dunk case and that both were going to go down for it. The AG was basically saying, listen, we have a ton of solid evidence. I think the same thing has happened for the LB case: once LE dug into all of DM and MS's electronic devices I imagine they uncovered the whole story. 30 terabytes, that's a lot of dirt to have on somebody. IMO that is why a direct indictment has been granted.

 

[MsSherlock]

Well isn't that what happened? IMO you can't pretend to be shocked that those two were convicted, only shocked by what exactly they did. I thought just going from the hints in the newspapers that this was a slam dunk case and that both were going to go down for it. The AG was basically saying, listen, we have a ton of solid evidence. I think the same thing has happened for the LB case: once LE dug into all of DM and MS's electronic devices I imagine they uncovered the whole story. 30 terabytes, that's a lot of dirt to have on somebody. IMO that is why a direct indictment has been granted.

I was impressed by the amount of evidence the two sides argued over during the pre-trial motions I attended. Normal, law abiding citizens, who have faith in our justice system, don't give thought to the amount of evidence that never makes it to the trial- for me, it was an eye opener. I think there were many things, like the incinerator, that the defence desperately tried to get tossed out of the TB trial- knowing full well it would incriminate Twiddly Dee and Twiddly Dumb in the LB trial. Just as a hypothetical notion, it would be difficult for the Crown to get video's or anything with incinerator involvement permitted in the LB trial if it had not been allowed in the TB trial. My guess is that the Crown has a "Royal Flush" in this case. In the TB case, they had time-stamped video of DM's truck towing the incinerator to the hangar. These two guys are psychopaths and I'm sure the terabytes of evidence are going to shock our senses...again. MOO On another note, I wonder if MB's is going to attend any portion of this trial?

 

[deugirtni]

Well isn't that what happened? IMO you can't pretend to be shocked that those two were convicted, only shocked by what exactly they did. I thought just going from the hints in the newspapers that this was a slam dunk case and that both were going to go down for it. The AG was basically saying, listen, we have a ton of solid evidence. I think the same thing has happened for the LB case: once LE dug into all of DM and MS's electronic devices I imagine they uncovered the whole story. 30 terabytes, that's a lot of dirt to have on somebody. IMO that is why a direct indictment has been granted.

I'm not talking about myself and my own feelings and/or beliefs.. I'm surprised that someone of the AG's stature would get away with saying, out loud, in public, in front of the legal community, and the press, “there is good evidence that the person being accused will become convicted.” There are different and assorted valid reasons for going straight to trial, probably any of which were valid in that case. The burden of proof is at a much lower standard in a preliminary hearing than it is in a trial. It kind of goes without saying that there was enough evidence to go to trial, without going to the time and expense of holding a prelim in this case... but then that is true in probably most criminal cases. It just surprises me that no reprisals ever came from her saying that, having come from that particular person's lips - if those words had come from a lawyer who was completely uninvolved in the case, and/or exempt from any decisions to be made in the case, I would have thought little of it. To me, she has publicly made a judgement call on their guilt, as opposed to whether there was enough evidence to go to trial.. and isn't deciding guilt the mandate of the jury at trial in our province? I'm not arguing with anything other than that she apparently said that out loud in public. With those words, could she not have been said to have tainted the future prospective jury pool's impression on their guilt ahead of time? In our country we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. As far as I understand it, her mandate was merely to decide whether there was enough evidence to skip the prelim. Just my thoughts on that, of course.