GUILTY Canada - Loretta Saunders, 26, Halifax, NS, 13 February 2014 #2

[PonderingNS]

The friend interview.
http://globalnews.ca/news/1188908/victoria-henneberrys-former-roommate-shocked-about-her-arrest-in-loretta-saunders-murder/

Ops ! Sorry had not seen it posted already.

 

[musicaljoke]

Does anyone know how the free scholarships for Native Canadians works? I have a relative who just got status cards for her husband & 3 kids because they may be eligible for free post secondary education. Currently you must reside on a reserve to qualify according to this family. Is Hopedale a reserve? Just curious if Loretta qualified for one of these.

First Nations bands issue scholarships for their band members. Each band has their own protocol. My son-in-law applied for, and received financial assistance for all eight years of his undergrad and law degrees, but it was never a sure thing that the next semester would be paid. He had to apply, and show that he warranted the support. He never, at any time in his life, lived on the reserve.

We would be guessing whether or not Loretta received First Nations financial assistance. Why do you think it might be relevant?

 

[codeofhonour]

The charges against LS are from 6 years ago, i hardly would consider it a commonality.. and there was no proof she was selling, it was just because of the amount - but like i said before, lots of people buy in large quantities for personal use.

The amount of drugs alone cannot be used to establish trafficking.

R. v. McCallum, 2006 SKQB 287 (CanLII)

http://canlii.ca/en/sk/skqb/doc/2006/2006skqb287/2006skqb287.html


VERDICT:

[28] I am not aware of any presumption in law that quantity alone is indicia of trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking. Staff Sergeant McStay was a credible witness and I am suspicious that the accused did not have two ounces of cocaine on his person solely for personal use. The standard of proof, however, is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There will be cases where due either to the quantity of drugs or the circumstances surrounding the possession that reasonable doubt that possession was for the purpose of trafficking will disappear. This is not one of those cases. I find the accused, Frank Charles McCallum, not guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking, but guilty of simple possession of cocaine within the meaning of s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.



2 oz 56 grams


// in order to get trafficking

An expert witness has to testify
There usually is a record of prior sale
Evidence of packaging
Certain paraphernalia ie packaging


All these work together as the whole evidence.

 

[Karjinx]

Musicaljoke, Like Otto states above, it makes me wonder why such an intelligent young girl, would be in that situation. My thought was if her scholarship was paid, then she only needs to work for her accommodations & food, etc. (unless funds are granted for those expenses as well) I have heard no mention of Loretta holding a job. No mention of her coworkers missing her at work for the days she was missing. Where did she get her income for expenses other than schooling? I could make a list as long as my arm of things needed to get by day to day....toiletries, food, furnishings, books, clothing, utilities, cell phone bill, gasoline, repairs, insurance, etc.......
As much as I want to think of her as not in the drug world,.... buying, selling, or using.....
Where does her disposable income come from?
Musicaljoke, do they receive funds for those things too?

 

[codeofhonour]

Here in Ontario, the police can charge everyone occupying or "found in" when they do a raid. Sort of guilty by association. They say be very careful of the company you keep. It is quite possible to be charged with possession, but not even actually know that some one at a particular residence is even in possession of a narcotic. I am not familiar with anyone being charged as "found in" or how they faired in the judicial system. I am unsure as well if this is Canada wide or just here in Ontario. Loretta may have been charged and not have known anything about the weed in this case.
She may have been an innocent bystander. Innocent until proven guilty by a ......

Mere presence in a residence and knowledge of the presence of contraband in the room or residence is not sufficient to establish possession, evidence must show control.[2]

↑ R v Emes 2001 CanLII 3973 (ONCA) at 8
R v Basarowich, 2010 MBQB 4 at para. 26
↑ R. v. Colvin and Gladue (1942), 78 C.C.C. 282 (B.C.C.A.) both accused persons were found visiting a premise where narcotics were present, found not in possession of the drugs
R. v. Edwards, 2012 ONCJ 422 at para 23


http://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cana...nces/Drug_Offences/Print_version#cite_note-42

 

[otto]

Mere presence in a residence and knowledge of the presence of contraband in the room or residence is not sufficient to establish possession, evidence must show control.[2]

↑ R v Emes 2001 CanLII 3973 (ONCA) at 8
R v Basarowich, 2010 MBQB 4 at para. 26
↑ R. v. Colvin and Gladue (1942), 78 C.C.C. 282 (B.C.C.A.) both accused persons were found visiting a premise where narcotics were present, found not in possession of the drugs
R. v. Edwards, 2012 ONCJ 422 at para 23


http://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cana...nces/Drug_Offences/Print_version#cite_note-42

Wouldn't living in the residence establish control? The house was under surveillance prior to the arrest, so my guess is that there was knowledge of who was in control, and thus the two arrests.

 

[codeofhonour]

That's very true. Lots of people have a daily pot smoking habit and they function quite well. What we know is that both the victim and the suspects had some prior connection to pot. Given the amount that Loretta had, either she was a daily user, or she profited from the sale of pot. Blake had a personal amount of pot. This leaves me wondering whether this is the thread that connects the victim to the suspects.

Additionally, regarding the $700, the live-in boyfriend said that this was rent money, but to believe that, we also have to believe that a university educated woman gave her apartment keys to two complete strangers; unemployed drug using drifters, and required nothing in exchange. That doesn't sound true no matter how I look at it. If Loretta did this out of the kindness of her heart, why, on Feb 9, did Victoria express such animosity towards Loretta?

// I believe Loretta was the kind of person that would try to see the best in people and was very emphatic by nature. She truly was a caring soul and her life song sings this even today.

With the history of the accused and their lifestyle as grifters they simply took advantage of her good nature and leveraged it to exploit that to their gain.

As far as the Loretta's previous charge; two things; we don't know the circumstances or even the outcome. Furthermore , it was going on 5 years ago.

In the worse case scenario and a long stretch at that ( and I certainly don't ascribe to it) she could have sold a little pot on the side to supplement her income. This would give more motive to rob her of this. Having said that in the worse case scenario, they could have simply stole her stash and left, they didn't have to kill her. Take her car, steal her money, take anything of value; but why her life.

I am not a psychologist, but am well read and my opinion these two losers are sociopaths and never deserve to see the light of day ever again. I really hope they have a miserable time in the clink with someone with a bone to pick.

Justice for Loretta

 

[kdgdid]

Musicaljoke, Like Otto states above, it makes me wonder why such an intelligent young girl, would be in that situation. My thought was if her scholarship was paid, then she only needs to work for her accommodations & food, etc. (unless funds are granted for those expenses as well) I have heard no mention of Loretta holding a job. No mention of her coworkers missing her at work for the days she was missing. Where did she get her income for expenses other than schooling? I could make a list as long as my arm of things needed to get by day to day....toiletries, food, furnishings, books, clothing, utilities, cell phone bill, gasoline, repairs, insurance, etc.......
As much as I want to think of her as not in the drug world,.... buying, selling, or using.....
Where does her disposable income come from?
Musicaljoke, do they receive funds for those things too?

It is possible she had student loans. she was also only in her 3rd year at 26 so she was a mature student and may of supplemented band money...student loan money with savings. She may of also worked during the summer and school breaks...We have none of this information.

 

[codeofhonour]

Wouldn't living in the residence establish control? The house was under surveillance prior to the arrest, so my guess is that there was knowledge of who was in control, and thus the two arrests.

// You need to have the ability and position to do something about it.If for example your parents have a grow up ( and your not underage ) and their is no. Evidence your participating in it , it is a tough case to prove because you can't exercise control over the drugs. You know it is there, but knowledge of it can't get you a conviction on that alone.

Control requires that the Crown "prove is that an accused had the ability to exercise some power (i.e., some measure of control) over the item in issue.

↑ R. v. Beaver (1957), 118 C.C.C. 129 (S.C.C.) and
R. v. Martin (1948), 92 C.C.C. 257 at p.266 (Ont. C.A.)
↑ R. v. Chalk 2007 ONCA 815 at para. 18
↑ R. v. Traimany 2011 MBQB 15 at 34
↑ R. v. Sparling, [1988] O.J. No. 107 (Ont. H.C.) at p. 6 :

 

[otto]

// You need to have the ability and position to do something about it.If for example your parents have a grow up ( and your not underage ) and their is no. Evidence your participating in it , it is a tough case to prove because you can't exercise control over the drugs. You know it is there, but knowledge of it can't get you a conviction on that alone.

Control requires that the Crown "prove is that an accused had the ability to exercise some power (i.e., some measure of control) over the item in issue.

↑ R. v. Beaver (1957), 118 C.C.C. 129 (S.C.C.) and
R. v. Martin (1948), 92 C.C.C. 257 at p.266 (Ont. C.A.)
↑ R. v. Chalk 2007 ONCA 815 at para. 18
↑ R. v. Traimany 2011 MBQB 15 at 34
↑ R. v. Sparling, [1988] O.J. No. 107 (Ont. H.C.) at p. 6 :

Isn't it true that residents of an address are considered to be in control? My guess is that police determined who had control during surveillance.

 

[otto]

It is possible she had student loans. she was also only in her 3rd year at 26 so she was a mature student and may of supplemented band money...student loan money with savings. She may of also worked during the summer and school breaks...We have none of this information.

I've been meaning to ask that as well: how old was Loretta when she started University?

There is $10 million in scholarships and bursaries available to aboriginal post secondary students. That is in addition to all the other scholarships and bursaries. There are approximately 1.5 million aboriginals in Canada. The population of Canada is about 35 million. There are some additional considerations for education that were negotiated by aboriginals in Nova Scotia. Loretta has been described as an honour's student, therefore she should have had enough funding to cover her education without having to work. Much of the $10 million is given to people specializing in trades, so a promising lawyer would have no problem getting the required funding. That is exactly the area of expertise that would be widely supported.

 

[codeofhonour]

http://canlii.ca/en/nl/

Title is supposed to say mostly selected cases and some precedents

 

[lavitaebella]

I think so ... post the link and will take a look - may have to delete it if not relevant though.

I think they were talking about the obituary at the following link:

http://www.fillatre.ca/obituaries/86538

If you google "Loretta saunders fillier", you'll see the above posted link with a brief description:

"It is with great sadness that the family of the late Loretta Saunders announce her ... and Miriam Saunders; [modsnip]

 

[codeofhonour]

Isn't it true that residents of an address are considered to be in control? My guess is that police determined who had control during surveillance.

// I am not sure of the outcome of the case. Control is a big thing in possession.

A good article here about possession and trafficking explained, and the required burden of proof.

http://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Offences/Drug_Offences/Print_version

 

[otto]

// I believe Loretta was the kind of person that would try to see the best in people and was very emphatic by nature. She truly was a caring soul and her life song sings this even today.

With the history of the accused and their lifestyle as grifters they simply took advantage of her good nature and leveraged it to exploit that to their gain.

As far as the Loretta's previous charge; two things; we don't know the circumstances or even the outcome. Furthermore , it was going on 5 years ago.

In the worse case scenario and a long stretch at that ( and I certainly don't ascribe to it) she could have sold a little pot on the side to supplement her income. This would give more motive to rob her of this. Having said that in the worse case scenario, they could have simply stole her stash and left, they didn't have to kill her. Take her car, steal her money, take anything of value; but why her life.

I am not a psychologist, but am well read and my opinion these two losers are sociopaths and never deserve to see the light of day ever again. I really hope they have a miserable time in the clink with someone with a bone to pick.

Justice for Loretta

There's a big difference between being good natured and empathic (or did you mean emphatic?), and giving your apartment keys to a couple of unemployed, homeless grifters. Loretta wasn't born yesterday. She was a student of Sociology that had been arrested for trafficking by the age of 20. I don't buy that she was accidentally in the wrong place. She may have been good natured, but mature University students usually know better than to give away their apartment keys

The suspects are considered to be innocent of all charges. We don't know that they stole a car, were in possession of illegal drugs, uttered threats, or committed murder.

 

[otto]

// I am not sure of the outcome of the case. Control is a big thing in possession.

A good article here about possession and trafficking explained, and the required burden of proof.

http://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Offences/Drug_Offences/Print_version

I heard from a lawyer that holding for someone, even if there is no intent to sell or use, is sufficient for a conviction. Holding means in control.

The amount of pot that was seized is relatively small in comparison to most drug busts, however it was the largest bust in the area in four years. It's quite possible that the consequences were lenient. Fishing undersized crab, a fisheries violation, results in a $500 fine - which also seems lenient.

 

[codeofhonour]

There's a big difference between being good natured and empathic (or did you mean emphatic?), and giving your apartment keys to a couple of unemployed, homeless grifters. Loretta wasn't born yesterday. She was a student of Sociology that had been arrested for trafficking by the age of 20. I don't buy that she was accidentally in the wrong place. She may have been good natured, but mature University students usually know better than to give away their apartment keys

The suspects are considered to be innocent of all charges. We don't know that they stole a car, were in possession of illegal drugs, uttered threats, or committed murder.

Definitely empathic..auto fill gets you every time.

She may have been arrested but I don't know the outcome of that.

They may have been unemployed grifters, but who is to say they were honest about what they told Loretta. Appears to me VH is quite the story teller, and pretty experienced surviving on the cuff, much more than I would assess LS with what I know right now. Matur students judgements can be compromised under obvious financial duress. Maturity encompasses a broad spectrum of development , who's to say she was fully mature in street smarts ?

LE has a pretty good record when the lay homicide charges, I am pretty certain I just read they have well over 80% conviction rate, I will see if I can dig up the exact stat.

You are correct , accused in this country are innocent until..... If it walks like a duck,quacks like a duck, looks like a duck ; it probably is a duck.

good points Otto to keep me in check

 

[codeofhonour]

I heard from a lawyer that holding for someone, even if there is no intent to sell or use, is sufficient for a conviction. Holding means in control.

The amount of pot that was seized is relatively small in comparison to most drug busts, however it was the largest bust in the area in four years. It's quite possible that the consequences were lenient. Fishing undersized crab, a fisheries violation, results in a $500 fine - which also seems lenient.

I would agree in that conviction, they would now be an active participant.

 

[otto]

http://canlii.ca/en/nl/

Title is supposed to say mostly selected cases and some precedents

Drug violations are subject to federal prosecution. 30 grams was a small amount in comparison to most drug busts where there is surveillance prior to arrest. Regardless, it's a fact of the case.

 

[kdgdid]

I've been meaning to ask that as well: how old was Loretta when she started University?

There is $10 million in scholarships and bursaries available to aboriginal post secondary students. That is in addition to all the other scholarships and bursaries. There are approximately 1.5 million aboriginals in Canada. The population of Canada is about 35 million. There are some additional considerations for education that were negotiated by aboriginals in Nova Scotia. Loretta has been described as an honour's student, therefore she should have had enough funding to cover her education without having to work. Much of the $10 million is given to people specializing in trades, so a promising lawyer would have no problem getting the required funding. That is exactly the area of expertise that would be widely supported.

I do not know when she started University. I do know that it has been misquoted that she was a Masters student. It is my understanding she was in her 3rd year of an undergrad degree so I assume she was 23 when she started.

As for funding for Aboriginal students it is unclear to me who would qualify for this program because there are 2 different aspects, there are people who self identify as being aboriginal and people who are registered as being aboriginal. I do not know but I would doubt that people who self identify would qualify for this type of assistance. I also do not know which group LS belonged to.