Discussion:
Millard and Smitch
Add Reply
Dhu on Gate
2017-12-06 08:44:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Whenever I read about court cases I find myself in the shoes of the
accused, constructing a story of plausible innocence on the evidence
presented. Often I can: Stephen Truscott, Dave Milgaard, Donal
Marshal... these men were easy to see innocent. The prosecution won
their cases on a "flip" of the coin. OJ, was more problematic and I
needed to invoke some temporary insanity on his part to find him less
than "culpable" in the deaths of his wife and her fried.

Dellen Millard and his sidekick Smitch, though.... I canna see any
reasonable way to conclude their innocence.

Worse (tho' the prosecution has not made this argument), from the
evidence presented they were setting up a murder for profit business,
with Tim Bosma as the business case and Wayne Millard and Laura Babcock
being some "collateral damage" or practice runs on their path to "Gory
Glory".

I don't see how they can be innocent. Can you?

Dhu
--
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglaise.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)

http://babayaga.neotext.ca/PublicKeys/Duncan_Patton_a_Campbell_pubkey.txt
M.I.Wakefield
2017-12-06 14:34:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dhu on Gate
Whenever I read about court cases I find myself in the shoes of the
accused, constructing a story of plausible innocence on the evidence
presented. Often I can: Stephen Truscott, Dave Milgaard, Donal
Marshal... these men were easy to see innocent. The prosecution won their
cases on a "flip" of the coin. OJ, was more problematic and I needed to
invoke some temporary insanity on his part to find him less than
"culpable" in the deaths of his wife and her fried.
Dellen Millard and his sidekick Smitch, though.... I canna see any
reasonable way to conclude their innocence.
Worse (tho' the prosecution has not made this argument), from the evidence
presented they were setting up a murder for profit business, with Tim
Bosma as the business case and Wayne Millard and Laura Babcock being some
"collateral damage" or practice runs on their path to "Gory Glory".
I don't see how they can be innocent. Can you?
In a word, "Fuck, no." These are the people consecutive sentences were made
for ... I fully expect Smich and Millard's parole eligibility to change from
May, 2038 to May 2063.

I'm somewhat surprised they even managed to find a jury for Laura Babcock
after Tim Bosma case
Dave Smith
2017-12-06 16:04:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dhu on Gate
Whenever I read about court cases I find myself in the shoes of the
accused, constructing a story of plausible innocence on the evidence
presented. Often I can: Stephen Truscott, Dave Milgaard, Donal
Marshal... these men were easy to see innocent.
Not really so easy. There was some evidence in the Truscott case that,
for some reason, was not admissible. Donald Marshall was not so hard
done by. While it turned out that the town drunk was the one who killed
Marshall. Marshall and his friend were trying to rob two drunks, and one
of them pulled a knife and stabbed Seale. It was only a slight
miscarriage of justice and Marshall served some time for murder, but
his actual crime was robbery.

The prosecution won
Post by Dhu on Gate
their cases on a "flip" of the coin. OJ, was more problematic and I
needed to invoke some temporary insanity on his part to find him less
than "culpable" in the deaths of his wife and her fried.
Dellen Millard and his sidekick Smitch, though.... I canna see any
reasonable way to conclude their innocence.
Millard seems to be labouring under the same misunderstanding that many
people do about the concept of reasonable doubt. He seems to think that
suggesting that she is not dead will convince the jury that she is
still alive and that he must be innocent of the charge.
Post by Dhu on Gate
I don't see how they can be innocent. Can you?
Let's just say that when he is convicted his appeal will be based on
not having competent legal counsel.
Dhu on Gate
2017-12-06 17:55:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dave Smith
Post by Dhu on Gate
Whenever I read about court cases I find myself in the shoes of the
accused, constructing a story of plausible innocence on the evidence
presented. Often I can: Stephen Truscott, Dave Milgaard, Donal
Marshal... these men were easy to see innocent.
Not really so easy. There was some evidence in the Truscott case that,
for some reason, was not admissible. Donald Marshall was not so hard
done by. While it turned out that the town drunk was the one who killed
Marshall. Marshall and his friend were trying to rob two drunks, and one
of them pulled a knife and stabbed Seale. It was only a slight
miscarriage of justice and Marshall served some time for murder, but
his actual crime was robbery.
The crown's "murder" charge was a total bogon. You seem to be laboring
under the delusion that there is some moral equivalency between murder
and theft.
Post by Dave Smith
The prosecution won
Post by Dhu on Gate
their cases on a "flip" of the coin. OJ, was more problematic and I
needed to invoke some temporary insanity on his part to find him less
than "culpable" in the deaths of his wife and her fried.
Dellen Millard and his sidekick Smitch, though.... I canna see any
reasonable way to conclude their innocence.
Millard seems to be labouring under the same misunderstanding that many
people do about the concept of reasonable doubt. He seems to think that
suggesting that she is not dead will convince the jury that she is
still alive and that he must be innocent of the charge.
Post by Dhu on Gate
I don't see how they can be innocent. Can you?
Let's just say that when he is convicted his appeal will be based on
not having competent legal counsel.
Likely so. I'm guessing he'll have a difficult time getting competent
council for the appeal...

Dhu
--
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglaise.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)

http://babayaga.neotext.ca/PublicKeys/Duncan_Patton_a_Campbell_pubkey.txt
Dave Smith
2017-12-06 23:30:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Dave Smith
Post by Dhu on Gate
Whenever I read about court cases I find myself in the shoes of the
accused, constructing a story of plausible innocence on the evidence
presented. Often I can: Stephen Truscott, Dave Milgaard, Donal
Marshal... these men were easy to see innocent.
Not really so easy. There was some evidence in the Truscott case that,
for some reason, was not admissible. Donald Marshall was not so hard
done by. While it turned out that the town drunk was the one who killed
Marshall. Marshall and his friend were trying to rob two drunks, and one
of them pulled a knife and stabbed Seale. It was only a slight
miscarriage of justice and Marshall served some time for murder, but
his actual crime was robbery.
The crown's "murder" charge was a total bogon. You seem to be laboring
under the delusion that there is some moral equivalency between murder
and theft.
The murder charge was the result of the police investigation and the
witness accounts, including that of the target of the robbery. The
sentence he served for murder is not out of line with what I would
expect for a robbery.
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Dave Smith
Millard seems to be labouring under the same misunderstanding that many
people do about the concept of reasonable doubt. He seems to think that
suggesting that she is not dead will convince the jury that she is
still alive and that he must be innocent of the charge.
Post by Dhu on Gate
I don't see how they can be innocent. Can you?
Let's just say that when he is convicted his appeal will be based on
not having competent legal counsel.
Likely so. I'm guessing he'll have a difficult time getting competent
council for the appeal...
Are you kidding? There will be no problem finding a criminal lawyer to
make a name for himself in this case.
Dhu on Gate
2017-12-07 00:20:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dave Smith
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Dave Smith
Post by Dhu on Gate
Whenever I read about court cases I find myself in the shoes of the
accused, constructing a story of plausible innocence on the evidence
presented. Often I can: Stephen Truscott, Dave Milgaard, Donal
Marshal... these men were easy to see innocent.
Not really so easy. There was some evidence in the Truscott case
that, for some reason, was not admissible. Donald Marshall was not so
hard done by. While it turned out that the town drunk was the one who
killed Marshall. Marshall and his friend were trying to rob two
drunks, and one of them pulled a knife and stabbed Seale. It was only
a slight miscarriage of justice and Marshall served some time for
murder, but his actual crime was robbery.
The crown's "murder" charge was a total bogon. You seem to be laboring
under the delusion that there is some moral equivalency between murder
and theft.
The murder charge was the result of the police investigation and the
witness accounts, including that of the target of the robbery. The
sentence he served for murder is not out of line with what I would
expect for a robbery.
It may be so, but the time he did was _as_a_murderer_ he knew
he wasn't. That is an atrocity.

Dhu
Post by Dave Smith
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Dave Smith
Millard seems to be labouring under the same misunderstanding that
many people do about the concept of reasonable doubt. He seems to
think that suggesting that she is not dead will convince the jury
that she is still alive and that he must be innocent of the charge.
Post by Dhu on Gate
I don't see how they can be innocent. Can you?
Let's just say that when he is convicted his appeal will be based on
not having competent legal counsel.
Likely so. I'm guessing he'll have a difficult time getting competent
council for the appeal...
Are you kidding? There will be no problem finding a criminal lawyer to
make a name for himself in this case.
--
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglaise.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)

http://babayaga.neotext.ca/PublicKeys/Duncan_Patton_a_Campbell_pubkey.txt
Dave Smith
2017-12-07 00:42:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Dave Smith
Post by Dhu on Gate
Post by Dave Smith
Post by Dhu on Gate
Whenever I read about court cases I find myself in the shoes of the
accused, constructing a story of plausible innocence on the evidence
presented. Often I can: Stephen Truscott, Dave Milgaard, Donal
Marshal... these men were easy to see innocent.
Not really so easy. There was some evidence in the Truscott case
that, for some reason, was not admissible. Donald Marshall was not so
hard done by. While it turned out that the town drunk was the one who
killed Marshall. Marshall and his friend were trying to rob two
drunks, and one of them pulled a knife and stabbed Seale. It was only
a slight miscarriage of justice and Marshall served some time for
murder, but his actual crime was robbery.
The crown's "murder" charge was a total bogon. You seem to be laboring
under the delusion that there is some moral equivalency between murder
and theft.
The murder charge was the result of the police investigation and the
witness accounts, including that of the target of the robbery. The
sentence he served for murder is not out of line with what I would
expect for a robbery.
It may be so, but the time he did was _as_a_murderer_ he knew
he wasn't. That is an atrocity.
Okay.... so his criminal record should have been amended to read that he
was not a murdered, but that a death resulted from his robbery.

Eric®
2017-12-07 00:09:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dave Smith
Post by Dhu on Gate
Whenever I read about court cases I find myself in the shoes of the
accused, constructing a story of plausible innocence on the evidence
presented. Often I can: Stephen Truscott, Dave Milgaard, Donal
Marshal... these men were easy to see innocent.
Not really so easy. There was some evidence in the Truscott case that,
for some reason, was not admissible. Donald Marshall was not so hard
done by. While it turned out that the town drunk was the one who killed
Marshall. Marshall and his friend were trying to rob two drunks, and one
of them pulled a knife and stabbed Seale. It was only a slight
miscarriage of justice and Marshall served some time for murder, but
his actual crime was robbery.
Miscarriages of justice are primarily either/or rather than a question of
degree, imo.
Post by Dave Smith
The prosecution won
Post by Dhu on Gate
their cases on a "flip" of the coin. OJ, was more problematic and I
needed to invoke some temporary insanity on his part to find him less
than "culpable" in the deaths of his wife and her fried.
Dellen Millard and his sidekick Smitch, though.... I canna see any
reasonable way to conclude their innocence.
Millard seems to be labouring under the same misunderstanding that many
people do about the concept of reasonable doubt. He seems to think that
suggesting that she is not dead will convince the jury that she is
still alive and that he must be innocent of the charge.
You have to give him points for trying.
John Milner
2017-12-06 16:18:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dhu on Gate
OJ, was more problematic and I
needed to invoke some temporary insanity on his part to find him less
than "culpable" in the deaths of his wife and her fried.
Huh?

He's a bloodthirsty killer and serial wife abuser - there IS no insanity
defense for that hog-headed butcher!

One day someone will open his gut sack up and make him wear his fucking
entrails to a long dirt nap.
Loading...