GUILTY - Wayne Millard Murder Trial - Dellen Millard Charged With Murder - #4

[Claroon]

He had the chance to sell the whole thing as a going concern, but instead, fired all the workers who'd been trained, handed back the certification, and tried to find a tenant to take over the lease. Piece meal. What a dork.

The "after the fact" of activity is telling. You forgot to mention why he did this--to have total control of the hangar for more devious missions and cremating people without around.

Even worse "Millard texts Smich: "Reminds me, Shane's starting modification on the white van for search and capture missions. " What the h3ll! Who the h3ll was he going to search and capture? Sicko to the nth degree!!

 

[Claroon]

they would have tried to prey on more people to murder.
How much of a lunatic do you have to be to walk up to a house with witnesses and have plans to murder the person selling the truck?
There was definitely something not right with him that is for sure.

and from the billandrew log of text tweets: "Millard texts Smich: "Reminds me, Shane's starting modification on the white van for search and capture missions." Babcock, Millard, and Bosma Murders

That is truly horrifying.

 

[MistyWaters]

There are plenty of cases where decisions are reversed, even after a trial. The judge will set aside all concerns about the implications of her decision on the Toronto Police Force. She will make a ruling based on the evidence.

I certainly didn’t intend to insinuate any incompetence or bias toward the judge because her verdict will be legally based on the evidence presented during the trial. She will issue a written summary on how that verdict was based, unlike trial by jury. In Canada either the prosecution or defence have the right to file an appeal if either side believes legal procedure wasn’t followed.

However my opinion is the Crown put forward a weak case and even the judge wasn’t impressed with level of professionalism involving the reconstruction to disprove suicide. Couldn’t they have done better?

 

[ABro]

I have to look back but I thought both parents’ deaths were ruled undetermined as opposed to suicide and at least one was initially investigated as suspicious. But I agree, the Harrison situation is another horrible example of oversight and only after the 3rd death in the same home did any real depth of investigation begin.

You're right. I think in at least one of the first two deaths, they said it was natural causes.

But, the main point is the same, the fact that a murder is initially overlooked doesn't mean the case can't be prosecuted. It just makes it more difficult to prosecute down the road.

Likewise, if the cops have initially charged the wrong person.

 

[palisadesk]

(not sure if he still lives in solitary?)..

DM gave a lengthy interview to a reporter - I don't recall who, but you could probably find it easily - while he was incarcerated in the Toronto jail for the LB trial. He said he had rejected solitary and asked to be in the general population, and liked that much better. Since he isn't a child rapist, he has as good a chance as any of getting along with his fellow inmates. They aren't the creme de la creme, after all!

Even Bernardo isn't in solitary completely - he was working in the prison library, something his victim's families were supposed to be apprised of, but Donna French said they found out from the media. Bernardo has since been charged possession of a weapon so his conditions may have been rolled back.

 

[ABro]

I certainly didn’t intend to insinuate any incompetence or bias toward the judge because her verdict will be legally based on the evidence presented during the trial. She will issue a written summary on how that verdict was based, unlike trial by jury. In Canada either the prosecution or defence have the right to file an appeal if either side believes legal procedure wasn’t followed.

However my opinion is the Crown put forward a weak case and even the judge wasn’t impressed with level of professionalism involving the reconstruction to disprove suicide. Couldn’t they have done better?

The Crown used the evidence available after a botched initial investigation.

Personally, I think Millard will be found guilty. There's more than enough evidence.

 

[Claroon]

I wonder how DM's DNA got on the gun, but not his fingerprints. Did he shoot his father, then raise the gun to his lips and blow the dust away?

Police to identify criminals from their breath

Maybe he masturbated on it. You know murder gets him sexually aroused. IMO

The new DNA science sounds complex and I'm sure lawyers would have a lot of arguing over possible contamination and false DNA finds.

From the article you mention: "The new DNA techniques were so sensitive that they would require "great discipline" at the crime scene. He said: "At a crime scene where you are going to use these techniques you are going to have to be very careful that you control the scene. You have to wear white suits and gloves and use masks so that you don't introduce your own DNA."

 

[ABro]

Maybe he masturbated on it. You know murder gets him sexually aroused. IMO

I think one of the things that makes this case so puzzling is that there is no evidence of a sexual motivation for the murders. Likewise the relationship between Millard and Smich seems like it should have a sexual dimension, but again there is no evidence of that.

 

[swedie]

Still wondering about JS and where she was that night.

It was reported way back JS was at the house that night with DM and MB, but perhaps it was just a rumour. DM made no mention of her in his LE interview, but did mention how he contacted MB and AM. MOO.

 

[ABro]

It was reported way back JS was at the house that night with DM and MB, but perhaps it was just a rumour. DM made no mention of her in his LE interview, but did mention how he contacted MB and AM. MOO.

Not a rumour.

When this trial is over, I'll report on some of the more interesting testimony from the prelim including testimony from Michalski, Burns and the housekeeper. Smich also testified earlier this year.

 

[Kamille]

I get so tired of the MM bashing on here.

There is zero evidence that she knew of any of the killings.

Based on what I've seen of her, I highly doubt she knows a lot more than she has told.

The same goes for Michalski, who, like Marlena, was not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Clearly Millard tried to groom him and failed so moved on to Smich. Michalski wasn't a killer and never would be. He also never imagined his friend was a murderer.

Both Meneses' and Michalski's lies to police are easily explained by the fact that they were two people involved in criminal activity, who finally realized that things were way worse than they imagined.

They did bad things, but they were never okay with murder. I'm not sure why some people are so committed to making them worse than that.

I don't get why some people continue to defend a woman who was interviewed about 8 times with different results each time. A woman who admitted knowing that her boyfriend was involved in the murder of a man who still hadn't been found but went to a wedding with him professing her love and hoping he wouldn't get caught. This is evidence that yes, she did know of at least one murder. The same woman who admitted lying on the stand while under oath, more than once to the point where any info she gives on the stand is now met with skepticism.

This is also the same woman who was involved in MS's breach of the no contact order and who was trying to reach out to MWJ online around the same time. The same woman who was present during the commission of one murder and the cleanup, used as an alibi for another and was present during the planning of at least the truck theft. How naive can one person be? Considering she was all on board "not to tell them anything" at the time of her arrest, because she lied and held back info then, not that naive IMO.

MM did what was best for her just as CN did. The only difference is she does have a conscience and decided to give up information that didn't implicate her after she finally gave up on her dream of marrying MS and was satisfied that they would both likely spend their life behind bars. She always had a dislike for DM so she wanted to help convict him.

So yes, IMO, there is evidence that she knew more than she let on. But there is no evidence she was directly involved in any of the murders or the cleanup, except for her running around the farm and hangar apparently oblivious while they were burning LB's body.

So yes, some of us choose to believe that she knows more than she provided to LE. That is our opinion, which we are entitled to. And it's based on facts that are in evidence for all three trials. No one is bashing her. Some might be impressed on how she's been able to manoever and manipulate around a lot of LE and attorneys to keep herself out of trouble and at the same time appear to some, to be a sweet, young naive thing who knew nothing and was just confused.

MOO

 

[MistyWaters]

You're right. I think in at least one of the first two deaths, they said it was natural causes.

But, the main point is the same, the fact that a murder is initially overlooked doesn't mean the case can't be prosecuted. It just makes it more difficult to prosecute down the road.

Likewise, if the cops have initially charged the wrong person.

History can sometimes play a role as well. After the numerous childrens deaths that were mistakingly ruled upon by Dr Smith, resulting in several wrongful prosecutions, perhaps the pendulum of what constituted “suspicious” swung too far to the other side.

Dr. Charles Smith: The man behind the public inquiry | CBC News

 

[MistyWaters]

The Crown used the evidence available after a botched initial investigation.

Personally, I think Millard will be found guilty. There's more than enough evidence.

Whether or not it can be proven DMs hand was on the gun, I certainly do agree he was the direct cause of his father’s death, one way or another.

 

[swedie]

I don't get why some people continue to defend a woman who was interviewed about 8 times with different results each time. A woman who admitted knowing that her boyfriend was involved in the murder of a man who still hadn't been found but went to a wedding with him professing her love and hoping he wouldn't get caught. This is evidence that yes, she did know of at least one murder. The same woman who admitted lying on the stand while under oath, more than once to the point where any info she gives on the stand is now met with skepticism.

This is also the same woman who was involved in MS's breach of the no contact order and who was trying to reach out to MWJ online around the same time. The same woman who was present during the commission of one murder and the cleanup, used as an alibi for another and was present during the planning of at least the truck theft. How naive can one person be? Considering she was all on board "not to tell them anything" at the time of her arrest, because she lied and held back info then, not that naive IMO.

MM did what was best for her just as CN did. The only difference is she does have a conscience and decided to give up information that didn't implicate her after she finally gave up on her dream of marrying MS and was satisfied that they would both likely spend their life behind bars. She always had a dislike for DM so she wanted to help convict him.

So yes, IMO, there is evidence that she knew more than she let on. But there is no evidence she was directly involved in any of the murders or the cleanup, except for her running around the farm and hangar apparently oblivious while they were burning LB's body.

So yes, some of us choose to believe that she knows more than she provided to LE. That is our opinion, which we are entitled to. And it's based on facts that are in evidence for all three trials. No one is bashing her. Some might be impressed on how she's been able to manoever and manipulate around a lot of LE and attorneys to keep herself out of trouble and at the same time appear to some, to be a sweet, young naive thing who knew nothing and was just confused.

MOO

Exactly! I have to agree Kamille, great post. MM knew the inner workings of what these guys were up to but pretended she knew nothing, even in front of them. It was all about the things DM was supplying to her; drugs, money, a place to live, a job, food, etc. She had MS and regardless of how terrible he treated her, she believed these guys would take care of her needs. She had a false sense of security.

That happens to many women, and especially when they're young, naive and lacking in self esteem. Has MM changed her attitude or life over the past five years? I'm highly doubting it. She has lied and will continue to lie to save herself. To admit now she knew what was going on, would greatly shame her in the public's eye, not to forget, could lead to perjury charges against her...or worse.

IMHO had these B@ST@RDs not been caught, I think MM would have been their next victim to meet the incinerator. Once DM and MS picked up on the fact "she knows too much" it would have been game over for MM.
ALL MOO.

 

[ABro]

I don't get why some people continue to defend a woman who was interviewed about 8 times with different results each time. A woman who admitted knowing that her boyfriend was involved in the murder of a man who still hadn't been found but went to a wedding with him professing her love and hoping he wouldn't get caught. This is evidence that yes, she did know of at least one murder. The same woman who admitted lying on the stand while under oath, more than once to the point where any info she gives on the stand is now met with skepticism.

This is also the same woman who was involved in MS's breach of the no contact order and who was trying to reach out to MWJ online around the same time. The same woman who was present during the commission of one murder and the cleanup, used as an alibi for another and was present during the planning of at least the truck theft. How naive can one person be? Considering she was all on board "not to tell them anything" at the time of her arrest, because she lied and held back info then, not that naive IMO.

MM did what was best for her just as CN did. The only difference is she does have a conscience and decided to give up information that didn't implicate her after she finally gave up on her dream of marrying MS and was satisfied that they would both likely spend their life behind bars. She always had a dislike for DM so she wanted to help convict him.

So yes, IMO, there is evidence that she knew more than she let on. But there is no evidence she was directly involved in any of the murders or the cleanup, except for her running around the farm and hangar apparently oblivious while they were burning LB's body.

So yes, some of us choose to believe that she knows more than she provided to LE. That is our opinion, which we are entitled to. And it's based on facts that are in evidence for all three trials. No one is bashing her. Some might be impressed on how she's been able to manoever and manipulate around a lot of LE and attorneys to keep herself out of trouble and at the same time appear to some, to be a sweet, young naive thing who knew nothing and was just confused.

MOO

I defend MM for the same reason Tony Leitch did in his closing address to the jury at the Bosma case. Because she knew she had done wrong and has tried, through three trials, to correct her mistakes.

She spoke to the police 8 times because she was a key witness in three trials. She told lies to minimize her involvement and cast herself in a better light, which is a highly common practice for those involved with criminals.

Her lies -- which are far from as numerous as you maintain -- are easily explicable, and she was a highly credible witness at the Bosma trial, which is why her testimony was replayed over and over again by the Crown including in closing arguments. The jury understood why she lied.

If juries understand the motivation for a lie, they don't throw out a witness's testimony wholesale nor are they asked to. This is precisely why they are told they can believe some, all or none of a witness's testimony. Criminal courts are a constant stream of imperfect witnesses like MM.

Finally, there a lot of unsourced misinformation in your post to which I will not respond.

 

[Errrr]

I think one of the things that makes this case so puzzling is that there is no evidence of a sexual motivation for the murders. Likewise the relationship between Millard and Smich seems like it should have a sexual dimension, but again there is no evidence of that.

I'm thinking DM used that "lovey" terminology on Smich because he observed that humans seem to be motivated by it. I'm sure his mother used it many times in trying to get him to do things he didn't want to (not that he was motivated but, he understood its purpose).

 

[winter2017]

and from the billandrew log of text tweets: "Millard texts Smich: "Reminds me, Shane's starting modification on the white van for search and capture missions." Babcock, Millard, and Bosma Murders

That is truly horrifying.

Yep so looks like he had more victims intended and the perfect way to get rid of the body.
MS and DM enjoyed killing I think it was a thrill to them, just utter sick, depraved SOB's

 

[Claroon]

Yep so looks like he had more victims intended and the perfect way to get rid of the body.
MS and DM enjoyed killing I think it was a thrill to them, just utter sick, depraved SOB's

(bbm) - MS's rap lyrics "They chose to call me MARK at birth but they should've called me MERK.
All I do is put in work, no fun and games, til someone's hurt."

Bosma Day 54: Crown cross of Smich

 

[matou]

Why would MM think a cell phone DM left at Smich's house could be a birthday present for her? Her birthday was over 2 months away in February. Why not a xmas present? She also said that Laura's iPad was supposed to be a present for her but Mark claimed it. Doesn't make sense. A lie IMO.

 

[Claroon]

Why would MM think a cell phone DM left at Smich's house could be a birthday present for her? Her birthday was over 2 months away in February. Why not a xmas present? She also said that Laura's iPad was supposed to be a present for her but Mark claimed it. Doesn't make sense. A lie IMO.

I was thinking maybe it was because he was hiding it from her.