Jasper52
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2012
- Messages
- 3,256
- Reaction score
- 10,758
Great to see you back @DeaconBrodie! I'd love to hear your insight thus far.
Thank you, DeaconBrodie.I haven't followed this case as intently as I followed the Bosma and Babcock cases but this one seems to have reasonable doubt written all over it.
Too bad, I wish they had been able to present more credible evidence but as long as his appeals are all dismissed DM will never be released anyway.
Court is now back in session. Pillay says he is not calling any defence evidence.
by Adam Carter 10:34 AM
I've thought all along the Crown should have called another 'expert' witness to back up Sutherland's testimony.
Same here... I have been reading along silently and not as intently as the previous 2 hearings.I haven't followed this case as intently as I followed the Bosma and Babcock cases but this one seems to have reasonable doubt written all over it.
Too bad, I wish they had been able to present more credible evidence but as long as his appeals are all dismissed DM will never be released anyway.
I haven't followed this case as intently as I followed the Bosma and Babcock cases but this one seems to have reasonable doubt written all over it.
Too bad, I wish they had been able to present more credible evidence but as long as his appeals are all dismissed DM will never be released anyway.
That's hard for us to say though when we haven't been privy to evidence that has been entered in all of the ASOF and the cell phone info.
MOO
Millard has said so many things to so many people, if he were to get on the stand it would open the doors to almost every lie he has ever told.So DM will not be putting on a defence in the third and final murder trial of his killing spree. Interesting considering all the defence planning and scheming he was doing in those letters. So once again, he'll rely on the closing statement to weave his fairy tale, even though it is not admissible as evidence to be considered.
Or it is simply irrefutable. Arguing this stuff costs Millard money, and we've seen the same arguments in the two previous trials. Its also different as there is no Jury.That's true, but Agreed Statements of Fact rarely put the nail in the coffin.
If it is that important it would likely be argued over and not admitted without a fight.
Only Sutherland's evidence regarding the basic usage of revolvers is being admitted, the judge rules. "The balance of his evidence is not admissible," she says.
by Adam Carter 10:04 AM
What post was this?
I don't get the blanket thing. The GSR on his face is what's important here. If there was a blanket near or over his face, that would be suspicious in terms of committing suicide IMO.
I'm hoping we'll hear about that in the closing statements.That's hard for us to say though when we haven't been privy to evidence that has been entered in all of the ASOF and the cell phone info.
MOO
DM's DNA on the gun, the gun itself, cell phone pings placing him there, no alibi.... what else?
ETA: money as motive, of course!
.
Speaking of the bag , I do not understand the obsession . I see no mention of the name on the bag , men do not pay any attention to that stuff , it simply looks like a black & white bag. It would be different if it was pink with flowers .... then a man would not use it.
All things considered , whether right handed or left handed , the position of the bed against a wall and the restricted area of the dresser , the best and easiest way to fire a revolver in those cramped conditions would be an upside down gun fired with the left hand. With the added advantage of not having to face your father while you are shooting him in the eye.