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

Status
Not open for further replies.
If the Judge were to consider the lack of fingerprints on the gun as evidence, just my opinion, I think the Crown would’ve been required to present expert testimony to introduce that evidence by outlining why lack of fingerprints is an indicator pointing to suicide, to prove their case. However that didn’t occur.

This article states the odds are very low, only 5%, for finding fingerprints on weapons and blames the CSI effect for setting the expectation.
Why We Don't Find Fingerprints on Firearms - Law Enforcement Today

Interesting read.

What is your take on DM's DNA being pretty well undeniably on the gun -- will RP explain that away in closing?
 
Canadian Judicial Council Model Jury Instructions provide some insight into the thought process of Justice Forestell, as she deliberates.

If the current trial was to be a jury trial, similiar instructions would be given to the jurors by Justice Forestell.
When
these instructions are read instead as instructions for Justice Forestell to follow, they provide some clarity to her likely decision.

DM is likely to get off this charge IMO.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[1] Justice Forestell must find Dellen Millard not guilty of first degree murder unless the Crown has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Dellen Millard is the person who committed the offence on the date and in the place described in the indictment.

Specifically, the Crown must prove each of the following essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. that Dellen Millard committed an unlawful act;
2. that Dellen Millard’s unlawful act caused Wayne Millard’s death;
3. that Dellen Millard had the intent required for murder; and
4. that Dellen Millard’s murder of Wayne Millard was both planned and deliberate.

Unless Justice Forestell is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Crown has proved all these essential elements, she must find Dellen Millard not guilty of first degree murder.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
original instructions sourced from: Canadian Judicial Council
 
Interesting read.

What is your take on DM's DNA being pretty well undeniably on the gun -- will RP explain that away in closing?

Well it wouldn’t be unusual for DMs DNA to be on the gun given he bought it illegally. We didn’t know were he claims to have stored it but quite possibly somewhere in the house so it wouldn’t seem unusual DMs DNA was on the gun as that’s where he lived. Likewise it’s possible WM held the gun and left no trace of DNA depending on how carefully (or not) the gun was handled by investigators and it’s not always possible to determine a DNA profile from dead skin cells.

Once again the Crown, for whatever reason, decided to not go there by calling an expert witness to testify how the lack of WMs DNA on the gun disproves suicide. Therefore the judge is unlikely to speculate that it’s been presented as evidence of guilt beyond the DNA test results are a fact of the case.

Touch DNA has become quite a controversial topic as well and as time goes on, it’s been discovered it doesn’t yield precisely the evidence as once was thought.

Forensic Nightmare: The Perils of Touch DNA, by Michelle Malkin

How Can a Person's DNA Be Found at a Crime Scene?
 
Canadian Judicial Council Model Jury Instructions provide some insight into the thought process of Justice Forestell, as she deliberates.

If the current trial was to be a jury trial, similiar instructions would be given to the jurors by Justice Forestell.
When
these instructions are read instead as instructions for Justice Forestell to follow, they provide some clarity to her likely decision.

DM is likely to get off this charge IMO.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[1] Justice Forestell must find Dellen Millard not guilty of first degree murder unless the Crown has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Dellen Millard is the person who committed the offence on the date and in the place described in the indictment.

Specifically, the Crown must prove each of the following essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. that Dellen Millard committed an unlawful act;
2. that Dellen Millard’s unlawful act caused Wayne Millard’s death;
3. that Dellen Millard had the intent required for murder; and
4. that Dellen Millard’s murder of Wayne Millard was both planned and deliberate.

Unless Justice Forestell is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Crown has proved all these essential elements, she must find Dellen Millard not guilty of first degree murder.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
original instructions sourced from: Canadian Judicial Council

The Judge will also record the specific evidence in which she based her verdict or that what she found unreliable. So when she eventually announces the verdict we won’t have to guess how she reached it.

One of the reasons an accused chooses a Judge only trial is because the decision is based only on the merits of the legal arguments, strictly non-emotional. Obviously DM knows he’s no chance to play the pity game and public opinion alone would nail him.
 
Interesting read.

What is your take on DM's DNA being pretty well undeniably on the gun -- will RP explain that away in closing?
I think this is a non issue. It's acknowledged that he bought the gun, so the fact that he handled it is not incriminating in itself.

Editing to add: Sorry! Answered this before I read MistyWaters' reply. :)
 
Within one year he killed 3 people , imagine if he had not been caught and with the eliminator operating , how many more would have been murdered.?
MS and DM were on a killing spree and at first they had to test out the incinerator but once they could operate it

As much as TB's family is hurting, I hope they realize that Tim didn't die in vain. Thanks to his family's efforts to find Tim, the killings ended, or were discovered at least.
 
BBM I agree with you that WM would've likely held the gun while he thought over suicide. If he committed suicide, there would be no need to wipe down the gun. WM certainly wouldn't wipe the gun after he shot himself.

I can't think of a single case where someone killed themselves but hid the evidence of a suicide.

Sorry to reply to myself, but I just learned that the term committed suicide is not correct. You "commit" a crime. The proper term is that you die by suicide.
 
Reading snippets of Abro's book and other articles I get the feeling WM was doing a DM--living off his dad. It seems to me a lot of assets were in CM's name. I read by the age of 90 CM really didn't have a business as much as a hobby. Perhaps not earning revenue way back in Toronto. WM apparently didn't have aviation interest either just like DM.

What occurred is WM inherited everything from CM. The lease for the hangar would be up in 2011. CM had talked about moving the hangar to another city. Perhaps CM started talks with players. Seems WM was wooed to Waterloo.

When faced with what to do with everything he inherited, seems WM split it with Dellen. Heck, he even inherited his dad's mobile van and scooter. I have a feeling most of WM's wealth was his father's. I understand even 5 Maple Gate used to be CM's home. Perhaps WM didn't have as much business savvy as we give him credit for. IMO
But he had savvy enough to know that he needed to pay for the services of competent consultants to guide him, which he did, much to DM's seeming chagrin.
 
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).
Lol, you make him sound like such a non-human, robotish... psychopathic alien trying so hard to decipher the human mind and its intricacies, to enable himself to appear somewhat 'normal'. Too funny.
 
Lol, you make him sound like such a non-human, robotish... psychopathic alien trying so hard to decipher the human mind and its intricacies, to enable himself to appear somewhat 'normal'. Too funny.
But this is exactly what psychopaths do.
 
The Judge will also record the specific evidence in which she based her verdict or that what she found unreliable. So when she eventually announces the verdict we won’t have to guess how she reached it.

One of the reasons an accused chooses a Judge only trial is because the decision is based only on the merits of the legal arguments, strictly non-emotional. Obviously DM knows he’s no chance to play the pity game and public opinion alone would nail him.
That is all so interesting.. this seems to be rare.. how many times has it happened in Ontario where a murder trial was judged by judge-alone? I think the accused has a much better chance of receiving a not-guilty verdict because there is no emotional jury.

The jury is such an interesting concept, because they are never allowed, here in Canada, to disclose what went on in the jury room, not to anyone. The judge on the other hand, has to disclose on what and how and why she based her verdict.. so doesn't that open her verdict up to potential appeal that much more? Not only can the lawyers claim she erred on certain things, but also that she erred on what she considered in reaching her verdict? Has it ever been claimed that at a judge-only trial, the judge did consider something that the judge ruled inadmissible, since the judge was aware of it (it being, whatever it was that she viewed, ruled inadmissible, which a jury would never even know about).

I like to think there is enough here, but will be very interested to hear the judge's verdict.. I'm not feeling the love though.

I'm wondering why the defence and the Crown will still give closing summations even though it's a judge-only trial? There were no opening arguments for that very reason.. a closing summation is just to summarize (and get DM's 'evidence' into the equation without having to put up a defence for himself), but seeing as how the judge is a professional and was there for everything, can't she make her own private summaries? I guess I'm not getting why one (closing), but not the other (opening)?
 
If the Judge were to consider the lack of fingerprints on the gun as evidence, just my opinion, I think the Crown would’ve been required to present expert testimony to introduce that evidence by outlining why lack of fingerprints is an indicator pointing to suicide, to prove their case. However that didn’t occur.

This article states the odds are very low, only 5%, for finding fingerprints on weapons and blames the CSI effect for setting the expectation.
Why We Don't Find Fingerprints on Firearms - Law Enforcement Today

Thank you for this as I had thought that a lack of fingerprints gave weight to murder. Helpful to know that it is equivocal. I think it is part of reasonable doubt for me now, but still on the guilty side. MOO

ETA - That is, I believe that DM is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
Last edited:
That is all so interesting.. this seems to be rare.. how many times has it happened in Ontario where a murder trial was judged by judge-alone? I think the accused has a much better chance of receiving a not-guilty verdict because there is no emotional jury.

The jury is such an interesting concept, because they are never allowed, here in Canada, to disclose what went on in the jury room, not to anyone. The judge on the other hand, has to disclose on what and how and why she based her verdict.. so doesn't that open her verdict up to potential appeal that much more? Not only can the lawyers claim she erred on certain things, but also that she erred on what she considered in reaching her verdict? Has it ever been claimed that at a judge-only trial, the judge did consider something that the judge ruled inadmissible, since the judge was aware of it (it being, whatever it was that she viewed, ruled inadmissible, which a jury would never even know about).

I like to think there is enough here, but will be very interested to hear the judge's verdict.. I'm not feeling the love though.

I'm wondering why the defence and the Crown will still give closing summations even though it's a judge-only trial? There were no opening arguments for that very reason.. a closing summation is just to summarize (and get DM's 'evidence' into the equation without having to put up a defence for himself), but seeing as how the judge is a professional and was there for everything, can't she make her own private summaries? I guess I'm not getting why one (closing), but not the other (opening)?

RBBM

I think because a judge is involved in pretrial proceedings like prelims etc. there is les of a need to "introduce" the case and lay out a roadmap. On the other hand, there is still value in a final narrative as each side pulls together the various pieces of admissible evidence to tell the story they believe it tells - a story that as a whole either dispels reasonable doubt, or doesn't.

It's similar to me to evidentiary arguments like the ones over the Sutherland testimony. The evidence has been presented, but lawyers need to make persuasive arguments about why the judge should see things as they do.
 
I think that as the relationship went a long he would have said more, but he never had the chance.
It seems like Wayne had no one else that he could confide in. I wonder what the housekeeper had to say.
She must have seen the mess the house was in and that it was DM making all the mess.
I even read on google a few years ago that DM and MS amd MM were taking food out of the refrigerator that Wayne had bought.
Wayne never had the chance to confide in the gf, and I am sure DM wanted to make sure he didn't.
Sure he had the chance... they had been talking by phone since January - 10-11 months by then.
 
Lol, you make him sound like such a non-human, robotish... psychopathic alien trying so hard to decipher the human mind and its intricacies, to enable himself to appear somewhat 'normal'. Too funny.
I don't really think he was interested in appearing normal. He just wanted people to obey him. Smich was already on script. He just received reinforcing. It sounded just like a mother sending her reluctant son off to grade school to me.
 
If she was born outside of Canada, i hope they don't let that convict back in if she tries.
I am not sure , but that she is a Canadian citizen. She has come and gone many times since going to Europe, she has been back and forth to Canada.
She has a lot of money to travel, take medical school in Europe and as far as I know does not work. I believe she got paid off by MB , for providing no information to help convict DM except the letters she kept.
If she becomes a dr. I don't think she can get her license here because she has a criminal record. I don't know that to be fact but I read about it.
 
That is all so interesting.. this seems to be rare.. how many times has it happened in Ontario where a murder trial was judged by judge-alone? I think the accused has a much better chance of receiving a not-guilty verdict because there is no emotional jury.

The jury is such an interesting concept, because they are never allowed, here in Canada, to disclose what went on in the jury room, not to anyone. The judge on the other hand, has to disclose on what and how and why she based her verdict.. so doesn't that open her verdict up to potential appeal that much more? Not only can the lawyers claim she erred on certain things, but also that she erred on what she considered in reaching her verdict? Has it ever been claimed that at a judge-only trial, the judge did consider something that the judge ruled inadmissible, since the judge was aware of it (it being, whatever it was that she viewed, ruled inadmissible, which a jury would never even know about).

I like to think there is enough here, but will be very interested to hear the judge's verdict.. I'm not feeling the love though.

I'm wondering why the defence and the Crown will still give closing summations even though it's a judge-only trial? There were no opening arguments for that very reason.. a closing summation is just to summarize (and get DM's 'evidence' into the equation without having to put up a defence for himself), but seeing as how the judge is a professional and was there for everything, can't she make her own private summaries? I guess I'm not getting why one (closing), but not the other (opening)?

This CBC report below describes the Judge delivering the verdict in a high profile Alberta trial that closed earlier in June that same year. It was unique as approval was obtained to livestream only the Judge in the courtroom. (However there was one issue, in reading the verdict the judge found the accused guilty of 2nd degree murder and referred to a section of the Canada Criminal Code that had been struct down by the Supreme Court in the past so the conviction was later reduced to manslaughter.)

Wouldn’t that be great if CBC also live-streamed the Judge delivering the verdict in DMs trial!

You asked, we answered your questions on Travis Vader decision livestream coverage | CBC News
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
92
Guests online
1,228
Total visitors
1,320

Forum statistics

Threads
589,168
Messages
17,915,110
Members
227,745
Latest member
branditau.wareham72@gmail
Back
Top