Christina Noudga Trial Thread 11.22.16

[palisadesk]

Would anyone know whether Justice Toni Skarica's statement that he would have found there to be insufficient evidence that would prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Noudga knew about the murder would have been based solely on the agreed statement of facts?

It wouldn't have been based solely on the agreed statement of facts, no. Justice Skarica was also privy to plenty of behind-closed-doors discussions with Crown (and defense), to pre-trial submissions and to the witness list, assuming there was one. So he knew more about what the Crown had in its quiver than simply the statement of facts.

The key statement comes from the Crown, really, and Skarica merely amplified that: that they had no real evidence that CN knew about Bosma's murder. The fact that the OPP, Bosmas and pretty well everyone was on board with the plea agreement, suggests that the case was quite shaky and known to be so. Now, the Crown did not come out and say straight up that they didn't have enough evidence until after the deal was done, so there was (earlier) the possibility that some witness might have some damning information, or something similar - the process in some ways resembles a game of "chicken," after all.

But I think his statement, which came at the end of the proceedings, reflected the whole picture, and especially the Crown's characterization of its own case.

 

[palisadesk]

But what does the evidence (or lack thereof) against CN have to do with the evidence the Crown has against DM and MS in the LB and WM murders?

I think there's probably a lot of key evidence in the missing text extractions from DM's phone...we saw the big time gap in evidence in the extraction report around the time LB was murdered. Don't forget all the redacted sections in DM's letters to CN. I think there is probably some damning evidence against DM in the LB murder, not as sure about WM. MOO

Of course there's no direct connection between evidence (or not) against CN and evidence (or not) re the LB/WM cases.

But there may be a similarity in modus operandi. And, since we now see that the evidence against CN was much weaker than we were led to believe (and certainly weaker than we hoped), I suspect the same will prove to be true in the next two cases, aggravated by the very great difficulty collecting sufficient evidence so long after the events.

There may indeed be key cell phone evidence from DM's texts, but I will be very surprised if it is unambiguous. He talked about "missions," but never seemed to directly discuss killing people or any kind of actual violence. Let's say he has a text from around the date of LB's disappearance that refers to him "taking care of that problem," and the context can suggest it may refer to LB. It falls far short of "proof" without a lot of concomitant evidence. It won't be enough to show that he may have done it, there has to be evidence that he actually did, with "malice aforethought" as they say on TV.

As for the redacted sections of DM's letters, I will be extremely surprised if any of them allude to LB, or suggest he had anything to do with a crime such as her murder. Remember that the whole "line" he took in those letters to CN was, "Poor innocent me, I'm suffering here in jail, and I will make you such a wonderful husband and father, you need to help me out so we can live this wonderful life..." yadda yadda, ad nauseam. Whatever is redacted there will not be talk of offing a different girlfriend, incinerating bodies, or whatever.

I thought all along that it would be an extremely difficult business to prove a case of AATF against CN and speculated that there was probably not enough evidence to do so (given that there weren't more people involved who could have testified against her). Posters here argued, and I accepted it, that the fact that police had jailed her for four months and imposed strict bail conditions, etc., argued for the opposite. I accepted that.

But my original gut instinct was correct. And this time, I trust my gut instinct re the other two cases, just based on their inherent difficulty in meeting the bar required, plus the example just set.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

 

[swedie]

First I would like to say congratulations and thank you Ann for your brilliantly written book. I'm looking forward to reading the second edition also if one is in the works.

I have to say I am very disappointed to learn Miss Serialmurderersassistant got off the AATF charge and ended up with a reduced sentence. Sometimes it seems like our justice system is too soft, but I do have great relief knowing the two main evil doers, the ones who actually planned and carried out Tim's murder got the justice they deserve. RIH Dellen and Mark.

All those unlawful, selfish, self-centred individuals related to these cases, who have managed to squeaked out of charges, I believe one day they will get their "just reward." Perhaps one day new evidence will surface related to those individuals left unscathed by the law. and they will eventually be held accountable. We can only hope that in someway, somehow, some time they pay for their immoral acts and their lack of concern for their fellow man. RIP Tim. JMHO.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

CN's chastity belt on insta is something of promising (posted 11 weeks ago).

 

[deugirtni]

Whenever police/crown lay charges, there is no guarantee that there will be enough evidence that a jury/judge will find guilty as charged. Often accuseds are found guilty of lesser and included charges. In fact, I believe that at least in MS's case, the jury could have found him guilty of a lesser charge than first degree murder. Police often lay the most charges they possibly can, and the highest level of charges, and then there is room to negotiate.. often some of the charges will get dropped in return for a guilty plea, etc.

If one looks up AATFtM convictions in Canada, people have done horrible things after the fact, to help cover up a murder, presumably for the purpose of allowing the murderer to go free, and they have ended up with minimal sentences. Stuff like directly burning bodies, burning vehicles, etc.

Even in the worst case scenario if CN had known she was helping to hide the truck of someone her bf had murdered, and known she was along for the trip to dispose of the gun that her bf used in killing someone, and known she was helping to hide the incinerator that her bf used to incinerate his murder victim's body, what would her sentence have been? See: http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2...illy-mason-murder-case-gets-sentence-reduced/

If CN had gone to trial, and all of this stuff was brought up on the front pages of newspapers nationwide over a course of 3 weeks, she likely would have received the same outcome, except there would be far more to 'google' on her in the future. (There is plenty as it is!)

In regard to criminal records amongst medical docs... I found a series of 3 articles which is quite interesting:

Part 1: Have you done time, doc? (www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.109-4113).

Part 2: A check a day keeps the bad apple away (www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.109-4114).

Part 3: Are you kidding, doc? (www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.109-4115).

 

[Georgeo]

Of course there's no direct connection between evidence (or not) against CN and evidence (or not) re the LB/WM cases.

But there may be a similarity in modus operandi. And, since we now see that the evidence against CN was much weaker than we were led to believe (and certainly weaker than we hoped), I suspect the same will prove to be true in the next two cases, aggravated by the very great difficulty collecting sufficient evidence so long after the events.

There may indeed be key cell phone evidence from DM's texts, but I will be very surprised if it is unambiguous. He talked about "missions," but never seemed to directly discuss killing people or any kind of actual violence. Let's say he has a text from around the date of LB's disappearance that refers to him "taking care of that problem," and the context can suggest it may refer to LB. It falls far short of "proof" without a lot of concomitant evidence. It won't be enough to show that he may have done it, there has to be evidence that he actually did, with "malice aforethought" as they say on TV.

As for the redacted sections of DM's letters, I will be extremely surprised if any of them allude to LB, or suggest he had anything to do with a crime such as her murder. Remember that the whole "line" he took in those letters to CN was, "Poor innocent me, I'm suffering here in jail, and I will make you such a wonderful husband and father, you need to help me out so we can live this wonderful life..." yadda yadda, ad nauseam. Whatever is redacted there will not be talk of offing a different girlfriend, incinerating bodies, or whatever.

I thought all along that it would be an extremely difficult business to prove a case of AATF against CN and speculated that there was probably not enough evidence to do so (given that there weren't more people involved who could have testified against her). Posters here argued, and I accepted it, that the fact that police had jailed her for four months and imposed strict bail conditions, etc., argued for the opposite. I accepted that.

But my original gut instinct was correct. And this time, I trust my gut instinct re the other two cases, just based on their inherent difficulty in meeting the bar required, plus the example just set.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

There were a few texts that were made public after jury was sequestered, in that DM said the gun would be a "dirty girl" when he was done with it. Clearly, everyone knows what that means in gun lingo. Could be other texts that are pretty obvious, and may turn the case into a "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" for the LB trial. JMO...

 

[Mscree]

am I the only one that thinks Brian looks nervous & concerned..

Maybe he's not happy with his choice of company that day.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/noudga-bail-1.3864524

New article by Adam Carter


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[gremlingrrl]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/noudga-bail-1.3864524

New article by Adam Carter


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ugggggh.:gaah:

 

[deugirtni]

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/hamilton/noudga-bail-1.3864524

Change in bail conditions meant Dellen Millard's ex-girlfriend could leave home with parental note

I was wondering how and when that got changed. I wonder how all of the media missed her application to loosen her bail conditions?

 

[deugirtni]

In case you didn't see it, ABro was interviewed on Global TV's Morning Show a couple of days ago talking about Dark Ambition. Unfortunately, I am unable to find a direct link to the video.

<modsnip>

It was lovely to be able to see Ann and listen to her interview.

(Perhaps there is someone more knowledgable than I am who can figure out how to get the link for this video and post it here. Thank you!)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

i posted this last night, but my post was deleted.

http://globalnews.ca/video/embed/3072657/

 

[deugirtni]

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/hamilton/noudga-bail-1.3864524

Change in bail conditions meant Dellen Millard's ex-girlfriend could leave home with parental note

just posting some quotes from the linked article in case they later disappear;

....

Det. Sgt. Matt Kavanagh from Hamilton police told CBC News that those activities wouldn't mean a violation of her bail conditions, as long as she had a note from her sureties &#8212; who happen to be her parents &#8212; detailing what she was doing.


"There was no limitation to the activities," Kavanagh said in an email. "This condition makes it almost impossible for police to enforce the conditions especially if investigated after the date of the possible breach as she does not have to save the note. So in my opinion there is no charge of breach of recognizance."
....


Noudga's bail restrictions weren't always so lenient that a note from her parents would be enough to get out of the house. Kavanagh said that she was originally released with "very strict" $100,000 bail conditions.
They included wearing an ankle bracelet to track her movements (at her family's expense), and only being allowed outside her home to go to work or to attend school.


Kavanagh said she subsequently applied for and was granted variances in her bail, which removed the ankle bracelet and allowed her outside with a note.


Assistant Crown attorneys Brett Moodie and Craig Fraser, who appeared in court for the Crown for Noudga's hearing yesterday, said they were unable to comment on the issue.


Noudga's lawyer Brian Greenspan did not respond to calls and emails requesting an interview.
....

 

[deugirtni]

I'm thinking the lack of evidence may have been the reason such a huge change in the conditions was granted.

I'm wondering if AFTER CN testified in DM's trial, the courts/crowns were willing to look at leniency. She was touted as the Crown's 'star witness', who had not been interviewed by the Crown prior to her testimony. They weren't sure of what they were going to get from her until they got it. She served her purpose for them, and it seems they were mostly concerned with getting murder convictions for the other two. I wonder if there was a pub ban on this variance in conditions at the time, otherwise, how did all the reporters miss this?

 

[THXGuru]

I'm wondering if AFTER CN testified in DM's trial, the courts/crowns were willing to look at leniency. She was touted as the Crown's 'star witness', who had not been interviewed by the Crown prior to her testimony. They weren't sure of what they were going to get from her until they got it. She served her purpose for them, and it seems they were mostly concerned with getting murder convictions for the other two. I wonder if there was a pub ban on this variance in conditions at the time, otherwise, how did all the reporters miss this?

She had one of the most prominent criminal lawyers in Canada, he helped reduce a very serious to a less serious charge and now there is no jail time. She can now move on with her life. There is no such thing as the crown looking at leniency. She obstructed justice and probably helped DM cover his crime, but the truth is somewhere in the middle. One thing that was very well mentioned in the agreed statement of facts is that she did not know that Millard had murdered Bosma or something along those lines, this was very important to avoid future lawsuits.. Also worth noting is that the Bosma parents were satisfied with the result, SB did not attend. This conviction was just IMO.

 

[THXGuru]

Well this whole "note" thing pretty much made me ROFL. Somehow I can't picture this girl who is brazen and bold enough to stand up in front of the world and offer up her sexual escapades "asking" Mommy and Daddy if she can go somewhere. Pretty much assuming the answer was never NO. (to very much in her life)

This really happened in our judicial system??

What would you expect her to do? just stay home and weep. People do have lives to live.

 

[ILoveDateline]

What would you expect her to do? just stay home and weep. People do have lives to live.

I'm sure this is exactly what CN was thinking.

It's the part where she flaunts it on SM and the arrogance shown in court and by refusing to talk to LE until her arrest that irks me. She knew exactly what LE/the crown had and her attitude was whatcha-going-to-do-about-it.

I'm a believer in second chances. If her story is true, the poor thing [emoji14] had her life turned upside down for simply not asking questions and accompanying DM while he did odd things (that was apparently normal behaviour for him). There have been times in my life when I think, s*&t, I've got to get myself out of this situation, and with the support of friends and family, I refused to spiral into the depths of despair (watched Ann of Green Gables on tv last night, can you tell?) and get my act together. So while half of me thinks, you go gurl, do you, all of me thinks, for heaven sakes, set your profile to private!

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

 

[matou]

I also hate how they factor her age in her case. That she was 18 when she began dating him. So what? Jmo

 

[Georgeo]

She has definitely been coached by her new lawyer. Notice, her face wasn't completely covered, she was dressed conservatively (no red shoes) and wasn't snarky and rude in court. All that was part of the plea bargain - look how she has changed (for the better), she is contrite, she isn't argumentative as she was during the TB trial, etc... her high priced lawyer had her project the best possible image, without going overboard and showing remorse (as that would be too fake and obvious).

Hopefully, if she truly was duped by DM, she will move on and have a "normal" life after this settles down, but I find it hard to believe that people really and truly change that much. Once a rude and arrogant person, always one. Just like rehabilitation rarely works for criminals, but that's another story....

 

[THXGuru]

I'm a believer in second chances. If her story is true, the poor thing [emoji14] had her life turned upside down for simply not asking questions and accompanying DM while he did odd things (that was apparently normal behaviour for him). k

I believe this is what the situation is. The judge said that when you hang around bad people, bad things happen.

I also hate how they factor her age in her case. That she was 18 when she began dating him. So what? Jmo

18 does matter because you are still very impressionable at a young age. You do stupid things. I would argue that she had no idea that DM was going to kill someone for a truck, steal a truck yes but most people will not be around killers.

She has definitely been coached by her new lawyer. Notice, her face wasn't completely covered, she was dressed conservatively (no red shoes) and wasn't snarky and rude in court. All that was part of the plea bargain - look how she has changed (for the better), she is contrite, she isn't argumentative as she was during the TB trial, etc... her high priced lawyer had her project the best possible image, without going overboard and showing remorse (as that would be too fake and obvious).

Hopefully, if she truly was duped by DM, she will move on and have a "normal" life after this settles down, but I find it hard to believe that people really and truly change that much. Once a rude and arrogant person, always one. Just like rehabilitation rarely works for criminals, but that's another story....

Of course she has been coached by the lawyer. Greenspan is one of the top lawyers in Canada.

 

[ABro]

She had one of the most prominent criminal lawyers in Canada, he helped reduce a very serious to a less serious charge and now there is no jail time. She can now move on with her life. There is no such thing as the crown looking at leniency. She obstructed justice and probably helped DM cover his crime, but the truth is somewhere in the middle. One thing that was very well mentioned in the agreed statement of facts is that she did not know that Millard had murdered Bosma or something along those lines, this was very important to avoid future lawsuits.. Also worth noting is that the Bosma parents were satisfied with the result, SB did not attend. This conviction was just IMO.

This absolutely was not mentioned in the agreed statement of facts. The statement says it is her position she did not know not that she did not know. This is an important distinction.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3224174-Christina-Noudga-agreed-statement-of-facts \(last page)

It was also stated out of court by Noudga's lawyer that everyone acknowledged she did not know.

Nothing of the sort was said or even hinted at by the prosecution. What Craig Fraser said was he believed the Crown had a strong circumstantial case but there was no direct evidence Noudga knew.

The judge, in a declaration that left many jaws on the floor, announced he would not have been able to find NOudga guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Crown attorneys declined to comment on the pronouncement when asked about it.

People are completely free to disagree on what Noudga did or didn't know. It is my personal opinion, based on the circumstantial evidence, that she knew. But it was a circumstantial case with no direct evidence of her knowledge and women, especially young pretty ones, often get what a veteran court reporter friend of mine calls "the chick discount." Given the Bosmas' position, I think the plea was a very wise move.