Dellen Millard: Innocent Dupe? Alternative Theories
- Thread starter bessie
- Start date
New Posts
-
-
UK 100 year old skeleton of baby doe, Bishop Auckland, County Durham
- Latest: Laura Avery
- Status
swedie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2011
- Messages
- 5,472
- Reaction score
- 279
Originally Posted by swedie, responses by BQ in green.
Maybe they had no intentions of murder, it just turned out that way.
Yes on this we agree.... and who committed the murder is something we need to find out ! IMO
What we do know is TB was murdered and LE have arrested DM and MS in connection with his death, charging them with first degree murder.
There are so many possibilities we could come up with, but there is only one way it actually happened.
Yes this is true...and finding who did it and why is like the million dollar question especially with so little to go on..IMO
We may never know the whole story of what transpired that dreadful night. But whatever did happen was senseless, cruel and evil. All MOO.
I agree we may never know the whole story.... but I have a feeling the whole story is quite the 'mystery' it was intended to be JMO
Underlined by me. So you do agree DM was present and involved, but just don't know who killed TB?
Bottom line is, in a court of law, if DM was present at the time of murder, whether he killed TB or not, whether it was intentional or not, he is guilty of murder. Charges against DM are; first degree murder, forcible confinement and theft. The forcible confinement to me says that DM may not havedirectly murdered TB, but the fact he is being charged with forcible confinement is going to secure the first degree murder charge.
MS is only charged with first degree murder because he is the one who more than likely directly killed TB. I am assuming because he was not the one having control of TB's truck, DM was, (according to first witnesses test drive) this is why MS was not charged with forcible confinement and theft. Also IMO it must seem apparent to LE DM was the one who initiated the plan. How they came to that conclusion is anyone's guess but I am guessing e.i., cell phone records, maybe according to conversations with the first witness and SB, DM was the person who was showing interest in purchasing a truck, DM was the one driving the truck. JMO.
Hijacking, sexual assault or kidnapping
(5) Irrespective of whether a murder is planned and deliberate on the part of any person, murder is first degree murder in respect of a person when the death is caused by that person while committing or attempting to commit an offence under one of the following sections:
(a) section 76 (hijacking an aircraft);
(b) section 271 (sexual assault);
(c) section 272 (sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm);
(d) section 273 (aggravated sexual assault);
(e) section 279 (kidnapping and forcible confinement); or
(f) section 279.1 (hostage taking).
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Offences/Homicide
HTH
Maybe they had no intentions of murder, it just turned out that way.
Yes on this we agree.... and who committed the murder is something we need to find out ! IMO
What we do know is TB was murdered and LE have arrested DM and MS in connection with his death, charging them with first degree murder.
There are so many possibilities we could come up with, but there is only one way it actually happened.
Yes this is true...and finding who did it and why is like the million dollar question especially with so little to go on..IMO
We may never know the whole story of what transpired that dreadful night. But whatever did happen was senseless, cruel and evil. All MOO.
I agree we may never know the whole story.... but I have a feeling the whole story is quite the 'mystery' it was intended to be JMO
Underlined by me. So you do agree DM was present and involved, but just don't know who killed TB?
Bottom line is, in a court of law, if DM was present at the time of murder, whether he killed TB or not, whether it was intentional or not, he is guilty of murder. Charges against DM are; first degree murder, forcible confinement and theft. The forcible confinement to me says that DM may not havedirectly murdered TB, but the fact he is being charged with forcible confinement is going to secure the first degree murder charge.
MS is only charged with first degree murder because he is the one who more than likely directly killed TB. I am assuming because he was not the one having control of TB's truck, DM was, (according to first witnesses test drive) this is why MS was not charged with forcible confinement and theft. Also IMO it must seem apparent to LE DM was the one who initiated the plan. How they came to that conclusion is anyone's guess but I am guessing e.i., cell phone records, maybe according to conversations with the first witness and SB, DM was the person who was showing interest in purchasing a truck, DM was the one driving the truck. JMO.
Hijacking, sexual assault or kidnapping
(5) Irrespective of whether a murder is planned and deliberate on the part of any person, murder is first degree murder in respect of a person when the death is caused by that person while committing or attempting to commit an offence under one of the following sections:
(a) section 76 (hijacking an aircraft);
(b) section 271 (sexual assault);
(c) section 272 (sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm);
(d) section 273 (aggravated sexual assault);
(e) section 279 (kidnapping and forcible confinement); or
(f) section 279.1 (hostage taking).
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Offences/Homicide
HTH
swedie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2011
- Messages
- 5,472
- Reaction score
- 279
No I do not. There may have been numerous places DM had it stored; hangar, barn on the Ayr property, garage at home to name a few possible places. IMO wherever it was stored, it doesn't appear to have been exposed to the elements because it is very clean looking. Of course it may have been covered by a tarp if stored outdoors.
Objection ;-) IMO we cannot say 'where DM had it stored' as DM may not have been the one who stored it.
Yes it is remarkably clean looking isn't it...
No gunk, blood, saw or blade marks, in fact its pretty new looking. Not even weathered looking for having endured a Canadian winter.... Like it hasn't really been used. Which leads me to think that someone put it there for the purpose of 'distraction' and 'implication' JMO
Alethea Dice
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2012
- Messages
- 2,477
- Reaction score
- 10
I could be wrong here, but...
If DM did not commit the murder, and if the forcible confinement charge doesn't come back with a guilty verdict, then the 1st degree charge would not apply. Maybe accessory to murder, maybe even accessory after the fact, but not 1st degree.
JMO
Yes I agree... accessory would only apply if it were proven he was there when TB was murdered or if he was consciously instrumental in everything leading up to it ..as in knowing what was to occur JMO
swedie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2011
- Messages
- 5,472
- Reaction score
- 279
The charges you suggest could also be applied if the Crown finds they are more appropriate and have a better chance of one of them sticking over the murder charge.
Basically the only difference between kidnapping and forcible confinement is the sentence. Kidnapping carries a life imprisonment sentence whereas forcible confinement carries a term of ten years or less. In a way, I am kind of surprised DM and MS both were not charged with kidnapping. That will be better determined as to why it wasn't kidnapping as apposed to FC. MOO
The charges set forth are hard to determine as we do not know the details of what transpired. For example, let's say it was all innocent of DM's part and for some bizarre reason MS decided to murder Tim. With that DM would still be subjected to murder charges. That is if the Crown can show DM was present, did nothing to deter the outcome of murder, aided and abetted MS in hiding/destroying evidence and a huge factor, kept the murder to himself instead of reporting it.
Then there's the other side of the coin; where the murder charges stick and the forcible confinement charges are dropped. And we mustn't forget, the Crown, after seeing all the evidence may tack on other charges. We may not find out if further charges are going to be laid against either suspect until it goes to pretrial. Bizarre enough, it could happen we may not get any details until the trial is over IIRC. A judge could put a PB on all information including the trial. We can only wait. MOO
Accessory
In some jurisdictions, an accessory is distinguished from an accomplice, who normally is present at the crime and participates in some way. An accessory must generally have knowledge that a crime is being, or will be committed. A person with such knowledge may become an accessory by helping or encouraging the criminal in some way, or simply by failing to report the crime to proper authority. The assistance to the criminal may be of any type, including emotional or financial assistance as well as physical assistance or concealment.
Knowledge of the crime
To be convicted of an accessory charge, the accused must generally be proved to have had actual knowledge that a crime was going to be, or had been, committed. Furthermore, there must be proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping the criminals commit the crime, or evade detection, or escape. A person who unknowingly houses a person who has just committed a crime, for instance, may not be charged with an accessory offense because they did not have knowledge of the crime.
The Criminal Code has several sections which deal with accessory to offenses:
21. (1) Every one is a party to an offence who
(a) actually commits it;
(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or
(c) abets any person in committing it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)
Alethea Dice
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2012
- Messages
- 2,477
- Reaction score
- 10
Actually, there is another difference between kidnapping and forcible confinement. Forcible confinement is "holding anyone against their will through the use of threats, duress, force or the exhibition of force". Kidnapping is the same, but also includes "the act of transporting the victim from one place to another".
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2009001/article/10781-eng.htm
But, I think you misunderstood my point. Death during kidnapping or forcible confinement is automatically first degree. Without the crime of forcible confinement, the charge would not be first degree murder, unless it can be proven that the murder was planned and deliberate. Depending on the circumstances, it could be second degree, manslaughter or accessory. If, for example, the intent was only to steal a truck and TB was told to leave, but chose instead to fight. Then, to me, the forcible confinement doesn't apply. If, during the fight, he hit his head on a rock and died, it would more than likely be manslaughter (without that forcible confinement charge being included). This is only an example, of course, because without knowing the cause of death, we can only guess at what may have happened.
HTH
I don't think it would be bizarre at all if it was MS who decided to murder Tim. In fact, I find it much more likely based on the method of arrest, the extra security in court, and the fact that LE indicated that the danger to the public didn't end until he was arrested, not to mention lifestyle.
JMO
cansleuther
Active Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2013
- Messages
- 696
- Reaction score
- 31
Not to mention Kavanagh's eerie statement regarding the second suspect:
Although Kavanagh believes that two (or more) persons are involved in the crime, he specifically says HE instead of THEY when referring to the actual murder.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/14/tim-bosma-murder-leaves-police-anxious-as-hunt-for-suspects-continues/
Alethea Dice
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2012
- Messages
- 2,477
- Reaction score
- 10
Yes, I remember that. It stood out to me at the time.
- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 39,401
- Reaction score
- 117,671
Same here AD, but IMO it can be taken two ways. They weren't looking for "them" at that point as DM was in custody, and no threat to the public. I'm not sure at that point that they even knew who did the actual killing because, supposedly, DM wasn't talking. (If DM had talked, they would have known who "he" was, but they were still seeking to identify MS.)
Alethea Dice
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2012
- Messages
- 2,477
- Reaction score
- 10
I agree, sillybilly. Which is why I thought about it for awhile and let it go. But it just didn't feel right to me at the time. I think, if it was myself talking, I still would have said "they" instead of "he", especially not knowing who did what. In my mind, I would have included both suspects, and that's what would have naturally come out of my mouth.
swedie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2011
- Messages
- 5,472
- Reaction score
- 279
BBM I agree. I feel MS was probably the actual murderer. I believe DM and MS were both present when TB was murdered, they both tried to cover their crime. Let's say if DM left the murder scene in his Yukon, leaving the dirty work of getting rid of evidence up to MS, in the court of law DM is still just as guilty because he withheld his knowledge from LE. What would make DM's guilt and involvement more solid would be if the Crown can show bad intentions from inception. MOO
swedie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2011
- Messages
- 5,472
- Reaction score
- 279
In the video SB seems very certain with her remark at 4:10 that she positively ID'ed the perps.
Also this part of the article IMO is very sketchy. Did MS and TB have prior connections. Did MS hire TB to do some work and rip TB off? I need more time to reflect on this.
“Look what he did the first time to Mr. Bosma. So, yes, there is a fear and we are doing everything we can to identify this person and get him under arrest,” said Staff-Sgt. Kavanagh.
“He will be arrested, I can guarantee that.”
Although describing the attack as “targeted,” Staff-Sgt. Kavanagh said there was “no connection whatsoever” between Mr. Bosma and Mr. Millard before the incident.[/I]
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...olice-anxious-as-hunt-for-suspects-continues/
Also this part of the article IMO is very sketchy. Did MS and TB have prior connections. Did MS hire TB to do some work and rip TB off? I need more time to reflect on this.
“Look what he did the first time to Mr. Bosma. So, yes, there is a fear and we are doing everything we can to identify this person and get him under arrest,” said Staff-Sgt. Kavanagh.
“He will be arrested, I can guarantee that.”
Although describing the attack as “targeted,” Staff-Sgt. Kavanagh said there was “no connection whatsoever” between Mr. Bosma and Mr. Millard before the incident.[/I]
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...olice-anxious-as-hunt-for-suspects-continues/
How could I possibly missed that?? :banghead: Who exactly is "he"? And what did "he" do to TB "the first time"? Most importantly, has "he" yet been questioned and is "he" presently incarcerated? Whatever "he" did, did it only affect TB or was it intended to target other members of the family, too? Did we just accidentally slip on past something like a real motive here? Baffling. IMO. MOO. For the life of me I can't imagine what an apparently high achiever like TB and an apparently aimless roustabout like MS could possibly have had in common, even briefly, but life is often stranger than fiction, that's for sure. MOO
Snoofo
New Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2013
- Messages
- 5,673
- Reaction score
- 0
This was definitely discussed in one of the threads after Kavanagh used those words and sleuthers concluded the discussion with the understanding that what "he did to Mr. Bosma the first time" was he murdered him. So Kavanagh is saying yes he is clearly dangerous because of what he did before. And IMO they must have known who it was at that point and were just waiting for enough evidence to come back confirmed to arrest him. IMO and as understood before, there was no relationship between TB and MS.
Alethea Dice
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2012
- Messages
- 2,477
- Reaction score
- 10
But I think Kavanagh only confirmed that there was no connection between DM and TB. I don't think anything was ever said about MS in that regard, to confirm or not confirm. It was the same time that he said that TB was targeted, and then another officer corrected that statement, off camera after the press conference, to be that he was targeted for his truck.
I agree that they knew who it was at that point too. Was the targeted comment a slip?
JMO
skatergirl
New Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2013
- Messages
- 246
- Reaction score
- 0
Remembered reading this and thought you may find it useful in your discussions on the topic of the charges.
BBM
The concern is that if the lesser charges were to be dropped although Leitch says he has no intention of doing that Millard's fingerprints would no longer be on file.
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/3839297-clairmont-so-close-yet-so-far-from-answers-in-bosma-case/
Actually fingerprints remain on file.IMO You can apply to have them removed BUT some Police Depts refuse point blank to do so...claiming it is their policy to keep them on file.JMO which is formed by personal knowledge.
skatergirl
New Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2013
- Messages
- 246
- Reaction score
- 0
It was swedies post, which I was referencing, regarding the FC charges, specifically the bolded sentence
and my response, with link, again the bolded sentence specifically
I wasn't at all referring to DM's fingerprints, per bolded statement in the reply below
and my response, with link, again the bolded sentence specifically
I wasn't at all referring to DM's fingerprints, per bolded statement in the reply below
- Status