By Cover-up

Aug 14, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this

Come on, see this for what it is. The movement of venue and/or not allowing cameras in the court room is that there are individuals/parties (board members and/or financial institutions that will be mentioned and embarassed at the very least when it comes out how this magnitude of theft occurred over such a long period of time. Most likely there were dual signatures on the fraudulent checks written (customary in non-profit organizations). Also, there are treasurer reports customarily given at monthly Board meetings. Margaret Mills plead will most likely be that there was acceptance by the Board through non-action. "They trusted her" is not an excuse when the dollar amount and length of time is considered.

By Truth Be Told

Aug 14, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this

As a reminder...

Downtown Waco, Inc. Board (per Waco Tribune)
Chairman Scott Felton
Treasurer Mark Boyd

Tejas Logistics Systems president Gaylan Beavers, Wells Fargo executive Pat Millar, Insurors of Texas president George Chase, American Football Coaches Association executive director Grant Teaff, MCYC executive director Doug McDurham, Baylor University economist Tom Kelly, Quinn Campus executive director Jewel Lockridge, David Hicks of Compass Bank, Stewart Kelly of Kelly Realtors, McLennan Community College executive Danny Uptmore and Baylorýs vice president for finance and administration, Reagan Ramsower.

By This is BS

Aug 14, 2008 6:33 AM | Link to this

The prosecution agrees -cameras should not be allowed in the courtroom. "Cameras will have a harmful effect on the jurors and the conduct of the trail so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial" What about Darlene Gentry's trail? Look how well that went!!! Margaret Mills is no better than anyone else!!

By Barely literate

Aug 13, 2008 6:53 PM | Link to this

Ummm... Old Money? I'm trusting that you actually can read since you seemed to be trying to form a coherent response, but my point was that Wakey seems to only have gotten his info from reading the paper. Go ahead, read my post again, I'll wait... ... ... Thaaaaat's right. That's what I said. I'm not the one who gets all the info from the paper. That would be Wakey.

Really? Does anyone really believe that they can know everything about a court case by reading about it in the paper? And yet people like Wakey think they're experts on who knows what and when they knew it. On the other hand, if you're right and Wakey does have inside knowledge that we should all listen to, maybe the prosecution should be after him! Wakey does an awful lot of finger pointing... maybe he should be investigated!

Omg... grow up, please. It's bad enough that the Mills crap happened in the first place. Now we have to sit through endless trial coverage and amateur pundits lecturing us on how the competent professionals handling the matter can't hold a candle to the towering genius of blog commenters.

By Old Money

Aug 13, 2008 6:17 PM | Link to this

Dear Mousey,
WakeUpWaco (in fact), and several others (it seems) know alot more than you would know from simply reading this rag. If that's where you get your facts, perhaps you should learn more about the case before boring us with your cutesy (not) opinions.

By Here he comes to save the daaaaay...

Aug 13, 2008 5:43 PM | Link to this

So, WakeUpWaco, you're the genius and Scott Baker's the dog? Riiiiiight. I don't know everything about the case but I do know that you can't ever learn everything about something by reading about it in the newspaper. You'll excuse me for not giving a rat's for your "expert" analysis of the situation. I'm with Gwin; I've got better things to do than partake in the schadenfreude of an over publicized trial. If she's guilty of half of what they say then she'll get her due. Or maybe it's that you think you could do a better job than the prosecution, Wakey? Good thing you're here! You read the newspaper and have an opinion! Just what this town needs! Cue the "Mighty Mouse" theme song.

By Here he comes to save the daaaaay...

Aug 13, 2008 5:40 PM | Link to this

So, WakeUpWaco, you're the genius and Scott Baker's the dog? Riiiiiight. I don't know everything about the case but I do know that you can't ever learn everything about something by reading about it in the newspaper. You'll excuse me for not giving a rat's for your "expert" analysis of the situation. I'm with Gwin; I've got better things to do than partake in the schadenfreude of an over publicized trial. If she's guilty of half of what they say then she'll get her due. Or maybe it's that you think you could do a better job than the prosecution, Wakey? Good thing you're here! You read the newspaper and have an opinion! Just what this town needs! Cue the "Mighty Mouse" theme song.

By null

Aug 13, 2008 5:33 PM | Link to this

I feel like this trial should be treated the same as any other trial. She mislead people and her community and think that should be seen by everyone. The justice system should not treat her any different from any other criminal. She probably paid her attorney's with part of the money.

By Richard's Classmates

Aug 13, 2008 5:16 PM | Link to this

Did she pay $20,000 to the Caterer at her Son's wedding?

She probably should have saved the money to help pay his property tax bill for the last 3 years!!

The fruit does not fall far from the tree. He too thinks the law is beneath him, and he can do what he wants.


I hope the Husband has to take some blame, he surely knew, ask him about the trips and dinners at Ridgewood compliments of Downtown Waco Members!

By Richard's Classmates

Aug 13, 2008 5:16 PM | Link to this

Did she pay $20,000 to the Caterer at her Son's wedding?

She probably should have saved the money to help pay his property tax bill for the last 3 years!!

The fruit does not fall far from the tree. He to thinks the law is beneath him, and he can do what he wants.


I hope the Husband has to take some blame, he surely knew, ask him about the trips and dinners at Ridgewood compliments of Downtown Waco Members!