General Discussion and Theories #3

[Alethea Dice]

Your words of not being allowed to leave;

Sorry, those were not my words. As stated in my post, and as shown in the link provided, those were Kavanaugh's words. Here it is again in case you missed it.

“He entered that vehicle of his own free will, but he was not allowed to leave, therefore forcible confinement is the proper charge,” Kavanagh said when asked about the charge.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/05/15/first-degree-murder-charge-to-be-laid-in-test-drive-death-remains-badly-burned/

It's JMO but I believe MS wasn't charged with FC because he was the one captured via video in the second vehicle (Yukon) following. MS either walked to the end of the laneway or was let out of TB's truck at the end of TB's laneway to follow in DM's Yukon before the test drive. I do not believe MS was in TB's truck when the murder happened.

When police first discussed the video of the second vehicle following, they could not even identify the model of the vehicle yet, or how many people were even in it. Therefore, I would be very surprised if they were able to identify the driver of that vehicle from the video.

Video evidence reveals another vehicle following Bosma’s pickup truck when he left on the test drive, Kavanagh said.

Police have been unable to identify the vehicle’s model from the footage.

Police said only that it is an “SUV-type vehicle.”

“When Mr. Bosma’s vehicle left his residence, there was a second vehicle following,” Kavanagh said.

“We do not know at this time how many people were in that second vehicle.”

http://www.680news.com/2013/05/15/millard-to-face-1st-degree-murder-charge-in-bosmas-death/

MS did enter TB's truck and was in it when they left for the test drive. Whether he got out at the end of the driveway is anyone's guess.

Police earlier alleged the two men climbed into Bosma’s 2007 Dodge Ram and were then followed by a second car — Millard’s dark blue GMC Yukon. A third suspect was believed to be the person driving that second car.

Kavanagh now says police are not sure whether Smich, who is said to have been in the back seat of the truck while Millard was driving, exited that vehicle after leaving Bosma’s home and got into the driver’s seat of the Yukon.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2013/06/06/tim_bosma_murder_unclear_whether_third_suspect_exists_lead_investigator_says.html

MS is being charged with first degree because he knew TB's fate and even if he didn't partake in any part of it, he did not report it to LE; IMHO it's that simple and I believe a deserving sentence.

I really do not believe that a person who knew what happened, but did not partake in it and was not in the place where and when it happened, would be charged with first degree murder just because they didn't report it.

JMO

 

[Sillybilly]

I really do not believe that a person who knew what happened, but did not partake in it and was not in the place where and when it happened, would be charged with first degree murder just because they didn't report it.

JMO

<rsbm>

I agree AD ... there is no legal obligation to report a crime unless it involves a minor.

http://www.justicebc.ca/en/cjis/you/witness/coming_forward/index.html

 

[CanuckSleuth]

It appears as though MS is only being charged with first degree murder, and not theft or forcible confinement.


http://metronews.ca/news/hamilton/685845/the-tim-bosma-case-in-focus/

Seems pretty telling doesn't it...

One doesn't need to read into anything as telling, in my opinion. Remember Millard was arrested early on in the investigation, forcible confinement was one of the few things he could be charged with at the time. When more unravelled, the first degree murder charge was added. By the time Smich was arrested it was apparent to law enforcement Tim Bosma was murdered - and since that murder is alleged to have happened as a result of the confinement, the charge is first degree.

It is my opinion that whether Smich got out of the truck and into the SUV doesn't lessen his guilt, but that's for his lawyer to fight. I find it hard to believe that he did exit the vehicle though as it would be awfully hard to drive, not crash and murder someone. Even if a gun was used, as soon as it was shown I assume there would be a reaction but if not, it still has to be aimed. JMO

http://www.680news.com/2013/05/15/millard-to-face-1st-degree-murder-charge-in-bosmas-death/

MS did enter TB's truck and was in it when they left for the test drive. Whether he got out at the end of the driveway is anyone's guess.

I would also like to say that there is a big difference between choosing not to leave and not being allowed to leave. Since Kavanagh specifically said that Tim was not ALLOWED to leave then any scenario stating otherwise seems pointless.

 

[Juballee]

One doesn't need to read into anything as telling, in my opinion. Remember Millard was arrested early on in the investigation, forcible confinement was one of the few things he could be charged with at the time. When more unravelled, the first degree murder charge was added. By the time Smich was arrested it was apparent to law enforcement Tim Bosma was murdered - and since that murder is alleged to have happened as a result of the confinement, the charge is first degree.

It is my opinion that whether Smich got out of the truck and into the SUV doesn't lessen his guilt, but that's for his lawyer to fight. I find it hard to believe that he did exit the vehicle though as it would be awfully hard to drive, not crash and murder someone. Even if a gun was used, as soon as it was shown I assume there would be a reaction but if not, it still has to be aimed. JMO


I would also like to say that there is a big difference between choosing not to leave and not being allowed to leave. Since Kavanagh specifically said that Tim was not ALLOWED to leave then any scenario stating otherwise seems pointless.

I think it would have been odd to the point of absurdity if both suspects planning a robbery or a murder went to the front door of the intended victim if they didn't have to. If one was going to drive the Yukon, why wouldn't one have stayed in the Yukon? Why take the risk of two people being seen when one person could do the job of luring out the victim just as easily, and then there would have only been one suspect to identify later. Also, who gets into a truck just to drive the few feet to the end of the driveway when it is a ridiculously short distance, only to hop out and start driving another vehicle? That would not only have stood out as odd, but likely would have been seen as suspicious by SB if she was looking outside.

And I fully agree that the idea that a driver, alone with TB, pulled out a gun and shot and killed him without losing control of the vehicle or the victim, is pretty unbelievable. Anyone who has ever driven with children and tried to control them while the car was in motion would probably agree on how impossible that sounds. And that's just children hopped up on sugar, good luck controlling a grown man who is fighting for his life while driving.

But I disagree that just because Kavanaugh said in the beginning that he was not allowed to leave that we should not explore other scenarios, after all, Kavanagh was not there to witness the events, and I believe at the time that he said that, he was still openly looking for a third and possibly forth suspect. If everything that has been said so far is the absolute truth, then we should be hearing updates about the continuing search for the third suspect still, as far as I recall he has not officially been ruled out, just downplayed to an uncertainty. Although admittedly, I could be wrong, I just don't recall them fully ruling out a third suspect, which would honestly seem to make more sense if the Yukon followed and TB was killed in the truck, in my opinion.

 

[robynhood]

....IN all due respect..to poster...and trying to answering a few points above...on post #824....:

1. why do you think DM was actually driving when HE Probably pulled a gun on TB?....JMO it could have been when DM MAY have pulled over..JMO

2. I agree it would" seem " to be extremely difficult to shoot someone while driving...not impossible but definitely difficult...as while you are aiming a gun at a passenger your car would be extremely difficult to CONTROL.IMO..

3** I do not see a Problem that they both went to the door of TB 's house....JMO but*** maybe a murder was not planned!***...than panic seems to have occurred when they were left with TB dead...my opinion this part seems obvious..( PANIC CITY)..JMO they seemed like they were scattered ..hide the truck.. ,try and burn TB in a dam incinerator that did not work..., burn seats ...etc....and not return to make sure the evidence of a body was really ..BURNED...PLUS cell phones left any where seems very sloppy...panic again...IMO.

4.JMO..I belive their is evidence of what the Police have reported to th ePUBIC...I belive it will be shown in court...and defense already knows...they have strong evidence..TB test drive was caught on camra...when TB truck was dropped off again caught on camra....forensic evidence , and I am sure many many ppl gave the Le tips...been stated...JMo there are fingerprints all over TB truck ...and evidence on that farm...we saw it was searched extensively ...look at the video of all that was taken from DM farm...

I believe many of the questions posed here will be seen...IN COURT..the end...robynhood.

 

[Alethea Dice]

One doesn't need to read into anything as telling, in my opinion. Remember Millard was arrested early on in the investigation, forcible confinement was one of the few things he could be charged with at the time. When more unravelled, the first degree murder charge was added. By the time Smich was arrested it was apparent to law enforcement Tim Bosma was murdered - and since that murder is alleged to have happened as a result of the confinement, the charge is first degree.

It is my opinion that whether Smich got out of the truck and into the SUV doesn't lessen his guilt, but that's for his lawyer to fight. I find it hard to believe that he did exit the vehicle though as it would be awfully hard to drive, not crash and murder someone. Even if a gun was used, as soon as it was shown I assume there would be a reaction but if not, it still has to be aimed. JMO




I would also like to say that there is a big difference between choosing not to leave and not being allowed to leave. Since Kavanagh specifically said that Tim was not ALLOWED to leave then any scenario stating otherwise seems pointless.

I agree with most of this, but I still wonder why there doesn't seem to be the confinement charge for MS. Just because he wasn't arrested until later doesn't mean the charge wouldn't still apply, especially since that is what backs up the 1st degree charge.

I also, like you, find it hard to believe that he got out of the truck. Maybe there is a third person that was driving the Yukon, but all he did was drop them off and go home. It wasn't seen in any surveillance tape in the Brantford area. Maybe they know who that person is and that person turned in the other two, in return for no charges for accessory to murder or theft.

Bosma’s cellphone was found three days later in an industrial area of the neighbouring city of Brantford.

However, “no other vehicle” can be seen on surveillance video in that area, Kavanagh said. The cellphone led investigators to Millard, he added.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/05/15/first-degree-murder-charge-to-be-laid-in-test-drive-death-remains-badly-burned/


As Juballee said, Kavanaugh made that statement very early on, while they were still looking for the third suspect (or more). And, when the confinement charge was laid, they had no idea if TB was even still alive or not. I'm sure they knew nothing about how things transpired at that point in time, if they even do now. IMO, the charge was simply based on the fact that TB did not return from the test drive.

JMO

 

[Sillybilly]

I also, like you, find it hard to believe that he got out of the truck. Maybe there is a third person that was driving the Yukon, but all he did was drop them off and go home. It wasn't seen in any surveillance tape in the Brantford area. Maybe they know who that person is and that person turned in the other two, in return for no charges for accessory to murder or theft.

<rsbm>

That's what I suspect AD .. a third person waiting in the SUV, caught nearby (i.e. while still in Ancaster) on video following Tim's truck to a point, and maybe the perps notified 3rd person by cell that they were buying the truck so 3rd person could leave.

In one presser it was reported:

from:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9409831&postcount=228"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Canada -Timothy Bosma, 32, Hamilton Ontario, 6 May 2013 - #1[/ame]

Toronto event was the same - one perp in front seat driving; second perp in back seat

That indicates that both perps were in the vehicle. I think 3rd person (maybe gf or mechanic) was found to, or claimed to, have no knowledge of the crime but was instrumental in identifying the perps; DM was charged with FC because driving / in control of the truck and possession of a weapon to control/dominate; MS not charged with FC because he was not the one who confined/dominated, but he was charged with 1st degree because he either did the killing or was present but did nothing to prevent it.

Just a note for those who think forcible confinement means Tim had to be controlled within the vehicle while someone was driving. It does not have to be that he was confined within the vehicle. He could have been outside the truck but still being illegally controlled/dominated with a weapon or through intimidation. (Even if he was killed inside the vehicle, the vehicle wasn't necessarily being driven at the time.)

 

[swedie]

Sorry, those were not my words. As stated in my post, and as shown in the link provided, those were Kavanaugh's words. Here it is again in case you missed it.



http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/05/15/first-degree-murder-charge-to-be-laid-in-test-drive-death-remains-badly-burned/



When police first discussed the video of the second vehicle following, they could not even identify the model of the vehicle yet, or how many people were even in it. Therefore, I would be very surprised if they were able to identify the driver of that vehicle from the video.



http://www.680news.com/2013/05/15/millard-to-face-1st-degree-murder-charge-in-bosmas-death/

MS did enter TB's truck and was in it when they left for the test drive. Whether he got out at the end of the driveway is anyone's guess.



http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2013/06/06/tim_bosma_murder_unclear_whether_third_suspect_exists_lead_investigator_says.html



I really do not believe that a person who knew what happened, but did not partake in it and was not in the place where and when it happened, would be charged with first degree murder just because they didn't report it.

JMO

AD I guess I missed your link stating they were Kav's words, my apology.

BBM and HTH.
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.

Relative severity of penalties
In some times and places accessories before the fact (i.e., with knowledge of the crime before it is committed) have been treated differently from accessories after the fact (e.g., those who aid a principal after a crime has been committed, but had no role in the crime itself). Common law traditionally considers an accessory just as guilty as the principal(s) in a crime, and subject to the same penalties. Separate and lesser punishments exist by statute in many jurisdictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)

 

[Sillybilly]

AD I guess I missed your link stating they were Kav's words, my apology.

BBM and HTH.
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.

Relative severity of penalties
In some times and places accessories before the fact (i.e., with knowledge of the crime before it is committed) have been treated differently from accessories after the fact (e.g., those who aid a principal after a crime has been committed, but had no role in the crime itself). Common law traditionally considers an accessory just as guilty as the principal(s) in a crime, and subject to the same penalties. Separate and lesser punishments exist by statute in many jurisdictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)

That is in "some jurisdictions" but there is no provision in the Criminal Code of Canada that sets out a duty to report a crime:

from:
http://www.justanswer.com/canada-law/6eynw-person-knows-action-may-illegal-example.html

No, there is no offence in Canada for failing to report a crime, with only certain exceptions, such as many provinces have legislation making it an offence to fail to report child physical or sexual abuse. There is no crime for failing to report an offence about bribery or corruption of a public official. There used to be an offence for failing to report serious crimes, called misprision of a felony, but there is no such charge in the Criminal Code.

Smich is facing a full-blown murder charge, not being an accessory. If he was charged as an accessory however, it would be against his Charter right not to self-incriminate if he was also legally required to report it

 

[lanman]

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4206363-bosma-murder-trial-not-until-2015/

 

[swedie]

That is in "some jurisdictions" but there is no provision in the Criminal Code of Canada that sets out a duty to report a crime:

from:
http://www.justanswer.com/canada-law/6eynw-person-knows-action-may-illegal-example.html



Smich is facing a full-blown murder charge, not being an accessory. If he was charged as an accessory however, it would be against his Charter right not to self-incriminate if he was also legally required to report it

Thanks SB, but once upon a time there was this charge. I highly doubt MS fits this type of charge anyhow as I do believe he was fully aware of evil intentions of the test drive; at the least theft. My thought on this charge was in regard to MS's defense who may try and down play his involvement. Again without having much information to go on, we do not know who played what role. Guess we won't find out much until 2015 by the sounds of it. MOO.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Offences/Accessory_After_the_Fact

 

[MsSherlock]

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4206363-bosma-murder-trial-not-until-2015/

Thanks for the link Ianman. Guess it depends if it's early 2015- IMO, that wouldn't be too bad. Right now, these little court appearances gives MS and DM something to look forward to; breaks up the monotony. With MS in Toronto and not living 23 hours a day in segregation, I'm thinking that the next 14-18 months may go much faster for MS than for DM. I wonder what ever happened to any bail plans. MOO

 

[Sillybilly]

Thanks SB, but once upon a time there was this charge. I highly doubt MS fits this type of charge anyhow as I do believe he was fully aware of evil intentions of the test drive; at the least theft. My thought on this charge was in regard to MS's defense who may try and down play his involvement. Again without having much information to go on, we do not know who played what role. Guess we won't find out much until 2015 by the sounds of it. MOO.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Offences/Accessory_After_the_Fact

Accessory charges still exist (i.e. accessory to murder, accessory after the fact); it's just the requirement to report a crime which no longer exists, unless it is a crime against the state, i.e. treason:

from:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/op...r-citizen-arrest-198576111.html?device=mobile

In short, the Criminal Code makes it compulsory to protect the state, whether you want to or not.

An example: You're sitting in a local doughnut shop one morning, sipping your coffee and munching your muffin, minding your own business. Then, two tables over, you hear a couple of guys plotting what sounds like a crime.

Do you have a legal duty to report them to the police? Or to stop them from carrying out their plan? If they're working up a break and enter, a drug deal or a robbery, the answer is "No."

But if it's treason they're scheming, you're obligated to report them to the police, or to attempt to thwart their plot. If you don't, you're guilty of a criminal offence. Sec. 50 (1) (b) of the Criminal Code of Canada makes it a crime punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment if you neglect your citizenly duty to report, or stop, them.

Nowhere else in our law is there an affirmative duty, coupled with a major-league criminal penalty, either to warn police or personally confront would-be offenders -- not even if what's being plotted is murder

 

[Alethea Dice]

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4206363-bosma-murder-trial-not-until-2015/

Wow, 10 more months just until the preliminary hearing starts. Both back for a video appearance on December 11th. Does anyone know what all these 5 to 10 minute court appearances are for? Do they continue every month up to the preliminary hearing?

 

[Alethea Dice]

Thanks SB, but once upon a time there was this charge. I highly doubt MS fits this type of charge anyhow as I do believe he was fully aware of evil intentions of the test drive; at the least theft. My thought on this charge was in regard to MS's defense who may try and down play his involvement. Again without having much information to go on, we do not know who played what role. Guess we won't find out much until 2015 by the sounds of it. MOO.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Offences/Accessory_After_the_Fact

Was it maybe before 1955? From your wiki link:

A person is not guilty as an accessory for refusing to provide information to authorities.,Ref> R v Semenick (1955) 11 CCC 337 (BCCA)</ref>

And:

The following actions have been found to amount to the offence of accessory:
1.assisting the principle by giving him information or aid.[7]
2.hiding the principal offender[8]
3.concealing evidence [9]
4.giving false information to authorities including participating in a fake alibi

 

[swedie]

An eight-week preliminary hearing has been scheduled for Mark Smich and Dellen Millard, the two men charged with first-degree murder in connection with the death of Ancaster husband and father Tim Bosma. The pre-trial hearing is set to begin Sept. 8, 2014.

Dates for the preliminary hearing were set aside during a brief video appearance by the co-accused on Nov. 12.

Smich and Millard will appear again by video at the Sopinka Courthouse on Dec. 11 at 2 p.m. It will likely be 2015 before the trial for Bosma&#8217;s accused killers begins.

http://www.hamiltonnews.com/news/preliminary-hearing-dates-set-in-bosma-murder-case/

 

[skatergirl]

I hadn't heard this before but do know there was a lot of questions floating out there as to how/who pointed to DM as a suspect, maybe this is at least part of the answer

There are a few updates on the linked Dellen Millard investigations, however. An alert reader kindly pointed out to me that the Toronto Star recently reported on how “a ’208&#8242; contact card during a traffic stop led police to accused murderer Dellen Millard.” This confirmed information I had received about a cop having noticed Millard’s ambition tattoo as result of a traffic violation

http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/2013/11/dear-readers.html

 

[Archangel7]

Certainly seems like an unusual amount of death in proximity to DM.

 

[Juballee]

Certainly seems like an unusual amount of death in proximity to DM.

Is this perhaps implying that DM is now responsible for an accident that happened at his workplace in 2005? Is there no end to the things this kid will be accused of before this is done? Give me a break. And the family that had the workplace accident happen to their loved one, how will they feel about having their name and that person's memory dragged into this mess forever?

I believe AB is saying DM was stopped for a routine traffic stop and a cop happened to notice his tattoo? Didn't the MSM report that DM was followed for hours by police before he was arrested without incident? Will MSM pick up this new story, will it pass their more strenuous litmus test?

On a side note, I noticed that someone's blog must be doing well enough financially off of this tragedy to be able to pay for one of the top ads at Google when someone googles DM's name. To me, I personally find it very distasteful that someone is specifically paying to advertise by promoting themselves in connection with a very sad, terrible catastrophe that happened to a good family. That, to me is one of the definitions of exploiting a tragedy for personal gain, but again, that is my personl opinion only.

 

[ArianeEmory]

Thoughts:

1) You're posting on an ad-driven site that discusses crime. There is no point playing the higher-road card. People are interested, web sites get hits, advertisers pay.

2) Dellen Millard is not a kid.

3) The catastrophe of Tim Bosma's murder happened "to" Tim Bosma, it did not happen to Dellen Millard. Dellen Millard is not a victim.

JMO