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

[MistyWaters]

The judge said early Sept. when you will announce the verdict. HAPPY CANADA DAY TO ALL.

Every year we Canadians get better at celebrating our country’s birthday with gusto! I used to envy our American cousins and their obviously patriotic and fun-filled July 4th celebrations but I think we’re quickly making up for lost time.

The Judge’s decision, although it appears doubtful she also mentioned an earlier date of July 19th. Mark your calendar just in case!

“...With closing submissions finished, the case is now in the hands of the judge for a decision. Justice Maureen Forestell set a possible date of July 19 for her to return with a decision — but she also said it was more likely that the case could be put over until September because of her workload...”
Millard shot father to escape future he didn't want, prosecutor tells murder trial | CBC News

 

[Dion]

I don't get it. Untrained jury members are expected to quickly return a verdict, but it takes a judge, months to do the same. Why??

 

[nuff]

Why accused murderer Dellen Millard reminds me of Leopold and Loeb

There is an excellent novel, Compulsion, by Meyer Levin, first published in 1956 and re-released in 2015, based on Leopold & Loeb. There was also a film based on the book. Although fictional, it is a good re-creation of the case and likely motive. (Leopold was the "brains" of the operation, which was to murder a little boy, strictly to prove they were smarter than anyone else ... so there is a parallel to DM, although i think the basis of the relationship between the two is not like that of DM & MS.) Worth reading, if you're curious.

 

[musicaljoke]

I don't get it. Untrained jury members are expected to quickly return a verdict, but it takes a judge, months to do the same. Why??

The whole process of preparing a decision is different for a jury than for a judge. The judge needs to give reasons, based on legal precedent, so she will have to research and quote other cases. This will be done as she has time; she, no doubt, already has a booked schedule for the next several months. Any part of the judge's decision may become grounds for appeal. A jury doesn't reveal their reasons, so the process for a jury is much simpler.

 

[deugirtni]

I don't get it. Untrained jury members are expected to quickly return a verdict, but it takes a judge, months to do the same. Why??

The whole process of preparing a decision is different for a jury than for a judge. The judge needs to give reasons, based on legal precedent, so she will have to research and quote other cases. This will be done as she has time; she, no doubt, already has a booked schedule for the next several months. Any part of the judge's decision may become grounds for appeal. A jury doesn't reveal their reasons, so the process for a jury is much simpler.

This is interesting. I was going to say.... because the jury shuts themselves off in a room (or whatever) to deliberate, and only to deliberate, until a verdict is reached. Could be hours, could be days. Meanwhile, the judge wouldn't have the luxury of just shutting herself in somewhere for x number of hours until she went through that same process, so she does it as she has time... which in the end, might end up equalling the number of hours spent by the jury..

This is obviously wrong.. and hence the 'interesting'..

Do y'all remember in the very beginning, when DM was activating his right to remain silent, and that 'cocaine lawyer' was speaking on his behalf? And then... when the verdicts were reached at the TB trial? It seemed to me that DM believed that it had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt....

It is so interesting that in a jury trial, it doesn't even matter HOW the verdict is reached. It will remain secret forever, and no publication of what went on is to ever be disclosed by any of the jurors. Meanwhile, in a judge ONLY trial (which is very very rare in Ontario), the judge has so actually state what her judgement is based on, how she arrived there, etc. My question is - if the judge has to provide all of that kind of information and backup, then wouldn't it be much easier for a convicted criminal to appeal the decision due to any number of things which may be contained in her final ruling/judgement? Whereas a jury trial never has to explain it, and it can only be error found during the trial, ie judge's words, decisions, remarks, etc. One can never fault a jury for doing it wrong.

 

[clefk27]

This is an interesting video that sounds a lot like DM & MS

Very interesting parallels. Loeb was the instigator/mastermind (DM) and Leopold the enabler (MS) and only both together could lead to murder. To play the analogy a step further, we’d need DM to meet a similar demise as Loeb in the shower and MS to start writing books and develop a fluency in 17 languages (starting with English).
Sadly, both unlikely.

 

[MistyWaters]

This is interesting. I was going to say.... because the jury shuts themselves off in a room (or whatever) to deliberate, and only to deliberate, until a verdict is reached. Could be hours, could be days. Meanwhile, the judge wouldn't have the luxury of just shutting herself in somewhere for x number of hours until she went through that same process, so she does it as she has time... which in the end, might end up equalling the number of hours spent by the jury..

This is obviously wrong.. and hence the 'interesting'..

Do y'all remember in the very beginning, when DM was activating his right to remain silent, and that 'cocaine lawyer' was speaking on his behalf? And then... when the verdicts were reached at the TB trial? It seemed to me that DM believed that it had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt....

It is so interesting that in a jury trial, it doesn't even matter HOW the verdict is reached. It will remain secret forever, and no publication of what went on is to ever be disclosed by any of the jurors. Meanwhile, in a judge ONLY trial (which is very very rare in Ontario), the judge has so actually state what her judgement is based on, how she arrived there, etc. My question is - if the judge has to provide all of that kind of information and backup, then wouldn't it be much easier for a convicted criminal to appeal the decision due to any number of things which may be contained in her final ruling/judgement? Whereas a jury trial never has to explain it, and it can only be error found during the trial, ie judge's words, decisions, remarks, etc. One can never fault a jury for doing it wrong.

It seems the majority of rulings indeed are appealed, sometimes by both sides, however very few appeals are granted and those that are, not always is the entire decision overruled. In Trial by Judge, I can only find recent examples pertaining to appeals heard involving length of sentencing. One reason why few decisions are successfully appealed might be any one Judge has a host of resources including peer review of the final report. And whether it be an Appeal Judge or Superior Court Judge, Supreme Court precedent rulings are information common amongst all judges.

On the other hand, certain jury cases are successfully appealed because of errors in juror instructions (rather than the actual verdict being appealed). That’s one reason why jury decisions are apt to be granted an appeal as well.

One thing to keep in mind is Canada’s legal system is historically derived from times when this country was a colony within the British Empire. Most of us here are probably more familiar with US court cases where judges are typically quite silent. However procedures for trials held in different countries are not always exactly the same. Canadian judges are granted authority to converse during a trial and occasionally they’ll even question witnesses. I don’t ever recall a US judge doing that. That verbal latitude is not necessarily grounds for appeal, it’s just a different way of doing things.

“A Superior Court Justice has the inherent jurisdiction to eliminate any procedural unfairness that arises during a trial.[4]”
Role of Trial Judge - Criminal Law Notebook

JMO

 

[Forest_Wood]

Very interesting parallels. Loeb was the instigator/mastermind (DM) and Leopold the enabler (MS) and only both together could lead to murder. To play the analogy a step further, we’d need DM to meet a similar demise as Loeb in the shower and MS to start writing books and develop a fluency in 17 languages (starting with English).
Sadly, both unlikely.

That’s how I understood it as well — with Loeb being the mastermind. It wouldn’t be surprising if Smich, like Leopold, has the easier time settling into prison life, for he may find his fit, something he seemed to be searching for when he still had his freedom.

 

[Forest_Wood]

I am wondering how the appeal process works. Does the appeal go through a judge who reviews the portion that is being appealed? Or is there a panel of judges? Do the lawyers show up in court every day, as well as the defendants, just like in a trial?

 

[Forest_Wood]

There is an excellent novel, Compulsion, by Meyer Levin, first published in 1956 and re-released in 2015, based on Leopold & Loeb. There was also a film based on the book. Although fictional, it is a good re-creation of the case and likely motive. (Leopold was the "brains" of the operation, which was to murder a little boy, strictly to prove they were smarter than anyone else ... so there is a parallel to DM, although i think the basis of the relationship between the two is not like that of DM & MS.) Worth reading, if you're curious.

So, Leopold was the brains in this movie?

 

[palisadesk]

Very interesting parallels. Loeb was the instigator/mastermind (DM) and Leopold the enabler (MS) and only both together could lead to murder. .

There are striking parallels between the Loeb and Leopold case and the crimes of DM and MS, but the similarities don't map exactly onto DM and MS. In our cases, DM is clearly the leader/instigator, MS is a petty criminal who has a kind of crush on DM (no real evidence of a sexual component, though) and aids and abets but doesn't seem to have been the planner/organizer. Though DM probably has above average intelligence, he is hardly a genius, and MS struggled in elementary school and likely had a learning disability of some sort. So, their roles were fairly discrete and complementary

With Loeb and Leopold, the contrasts are fewer. There was a sexual component to their bond, and both were highly intelligent and finished university several years early. Both were from rich and privileged families. Socially and intellectually, they were equals, though in their relationship Loeb was the leader, even though Leopold was academically much more brilliant. There's another parallel in that one was charming and gregarious (Loeb/DM) while the other was more of a loner with less social acumen (Leopold/MS). Loeb was like DM in that he had a history of petty crimes committed for fun and the thrill of it - burglaries, arson, vandalism - and he fancied himself a budding criminal genius (again like DM) but like MS, Loeb was a substance abuser (alcohol).
Loeb was the idea guy, and his idea to kidnap a child was similar to DM's scheme to steal a Dodge RAM, and had an implied potential murder as part of the plan. Leopold did not originate this plan, but MS-style he went along with it and contributed some ideas of his own, especially his admiration of the philosopher Nietzsche and the idea of the "Superman" who would be above the law and morality. Leopold was Loeb's faithful servant, rather as MS was to DM, though the nature of that bond seems to differ from between the two criminal pairs. There was indication of abuse (possibly sexual) in both Loeb and Leopold's childhoods, and we have speculated about that possibility with MS and DM. When the FBI did their in-depth studies of some 50 psychopathic serial killers, they found nearly all of them had sexual and/or physical abuse in their childhood.

It will be interesting to see whether the similarities continue. In prison, Loeb was eventually murdered by a fellow inmate, his personal charm notwithstanding. Leopold engaged in positive activities in prison, was eventually paroled, married, stayed out of trouble, and worked in the medical field for some years. It would seem the follower in a deadly duo has a better chance of rehabilitation than the instigator.

There are a couple of documentaries about Loeb and Leopold on YouTube. Compulsion is still the go-to book on the crime. It is, well, compelling. And it suggests that history does indeed repeat itself.

 

[MistyWaters]

I am wondering how the appeal process works. Does the appeal go through a judge who reviews the portion that is being appealed? Or is there a panel of judges? Do the lawyers show up in court every day, as well as the defendants, just like in a trial?

The appeal process is initiated by a written application within an established time frame and after that the decision is released by the Court of Appeal so no, it’s not like a trial being conducted. Appeals can be requested by something as simple as a prisoner’s handwritten note as they have nothing to lose even though it’s highly unlikely to be granted.

Court of Appeal for Ontario

 

[deugirtni]

I am wondering how the appeal process works. Does the appeal go through a judge who reviews the portion that is being appealed? Or is there a panel of judges? Do the lawyers show up in court every day, as well as the defendants, just like in a trial?

I think it is a different judge (appeals judge) determines whether the reasons for appeal carry any validity, and if so, then the verdict would be quashed and a new trial would have to be commenced from the start. The convict's lawyer for the appeal itself is often different from the person's regular lawyer, as I understand it (I recall MS's lawyer saying that he would not be representing MS during his appeal).

"“It is very basic,” he said of Smich’s filing but said Smich has strong grounds for appeal. Dungey, however, won’t be handling it. He wants his client to have a new set of eyes looking at the trial, the rulings and the evidence.
....
"It is likely the Babcock trial will be completed before the court of appeal deals with the Bosma trial appeals. Dungey said it could take two years to actually hear Millard’s and Smich’s appeals, which will be heard together.

"“Because of the complexity, the length of the trial, the number of exhibits — somebody has to look at all of this stuff.”

"Ravin Pillay, lead counsel for Millard, declined to comment on the appeal. He declined to say whether he is handling Millard’s appeal and whether he expects to be representing Millard at the Babcock trial."
Tim Bosma’s convicted killers file hand-written notices of appeal, complaining ‘my trial was unfair’

 

[MistyWaters]

My perception of DM is a little unlike either Leopold or Loeb. As a child he wasn’t popular and he was just another rich kid getting sent off to private schools. He grew up on the outside looking in, never really accepted by his peers. His habit of eating dog biscuits suggests he was comfortable using negative behaviour to seek gratification.

By the time he reached his 20s he realized that he could leverage his wealthy status to attract a following of groupies, plying them with money, drugs and alcohol, an anything goes place to hangout, taking them on trips, etc. For the first time in DMs life he felt powerful and important. Those who were chosen to hang out with “the older rich guy” probably did too.

Crimes and secrets form a strong bond. That’s not unlike how a wannabe gang leader first begins to meld his inner circle. I think that’s the place in life DM strived for, becoming a gang leader to seek whatever feelings of power and control that keeps other notorious gang leaders striving to stay at the top, often protected even. Problem for DM was he didn’t quite know how to get there, (thankfully) he failed at that too.

 

[Traymar]

I think, at the core, hate comes from a feeling of superiority. Love does not.

I'm no expert on the matter, but in my opinion hate is caused by threat. It stands to reason that a person concerned only with his own wellbeing will be moved to strong emotion only when there is a perceived threat to himself.

Anger, perhaps part of hate, is a secondary emotion that has fear at its root. So, most people only hate what they fear, whether they can articulate or even recognize that.

To me, a sociopath is driven by fear - fear of being taken advantage of, fear of being humiliated, fear of being ignored or dismissed, fear of losing power or control over some person or event. And I think anger and then hate follow quick on the heels of that fear (the primary emotion).

This is strictly my opinion, though it was formed from lots of reading on the subject.

 

[Satchie]

I'm no expert on the matter, but in my opinion hate is caused by threat. It stands to reason that a person concerned only with his own wellbeing will be moved to strong emotion only when there is a perceived threat to himself.

Anger, perhaps part of hate, is a secondary emotion that has fear at its root. So, most people only hate what they fear, whether they can articulate or even recognize that.

To me, a sociopath is driven by fear - fear of being taken advantage of, fear of being humiliated, fear of being ignored or dismissed, fear of losing power or control over some person or event. And I think anger and then hate follow quick on the heels of that fear (the primary emotion).

This is strictly my opinion, though it was formed from lots of reading on the subject.

There's also greed, which I think is a very powerful motive. There's a theory that psychopaths can turn off empathy for their victims at will, they can just see them as people who must be eliminated, in this case perhaps to fulfill his greed.
www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-empathic-brain/201307/inside-the-mind-psychopath-empathic-not-always
As an example of how that might work, there was a pet pig put up for adoption here, but later people were outraged to learn its' new owner had slaughtered it for meat. This person didn't feel that boundary between "pet" and "food" that most of us experience.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

The Psychology of Hate

"Acts of hate are attempts to distract oneself from feelings such as helplessness, powerlessness, injustice, inadequacy and shame. Hate is grounded in some sense of perceived threat. It is an attitude that can give rise to hostility and aggression toward individuals or groups. Like much of anger, it is a reaction to and distraction from some form of inner pain. The individual consumed by hate may believe that the only way to regain some sense of power over his or her pain is to preemptively strike out at others. In this context, each moment of hate is a temporary reprieve from inner suffering."

 

[nuff]

There's also greed, which I think is a very powerful motive. There's a theory that psychopaths can turn off empathy for their victims at will, they can just see them as people who must be eliminated, in this case perhaps to fulfill his greed.

The competing theory about psychopaths is that all of their emotions are blunted and that, in order to feel anything, they must control. They can perceive that other humans experience genuine feelings they themselves cannot - so not so much greed as jealousy.

 

[tmar]

I don't get it. Untrained jury members are expected to quickly return a verdict, but it takes a judge, months to do the same. Why??

Yes, Dion.
With the Jury decision, they have 12 heads to agree/diagree etc, in this case, ONE PROFESSIONAL.

 

[nuff]

Off topic, but in case anyone is wondering what Madame Justice Forestell is doing in her no-so-spare time MANDEL: Bail in double murder case would ‘undermine confidence’ in justice system

Seems like an excellent decision, IMO.