Motive: The Truck

[Archangel7]

If that were the case, then there would be no distinction in the law between murder, manslaughter, being an accessory and being a witness. I believe that the criminal code does hold different degrees of punishment for those differing crimes, therefore, they must not be the same thing. I am sure most lawyers and people who deal with crime on a daily basis could confirm this. If his innocence ended the nanosecond that he didn't report the crime, then that would mean that failure to report a crime would be the same as committing that particular crime. Also, if we are going to be judging people's guilt and innocence based on nanosecond responses, we would all be guilty, since it takes more than a nano second to react to anything; no one can whip out their phone and call LE in a nanosecond, so the bar for guilt in that measure it set impossibly low, trapping everyone.

Say we all witness a man being shot in the street; in the above scenario, everyone who froze in shock for more than a nano second would be just as guilty as the trigger man for not instantly reporting it. Even if we extended this nanosecond rule to say 5 minutes, there would still be some people in that crowd who do not call 911 because they can see that many other people already did, so by this rule, that would make those people just as guilty as the murderer. This is not how we judge guilt and innocence in this country, that is why there are varying degrees of charges and extenuating circumstances need to be addressed.

I maintain my opinion that some people pre-judge things based on one side of the story, and I think that they will have to travel to the other side of the world to find a jury pool that hasn't already been prejudiced by the media, if they want a fair trial.

Might want to educate yourself wrt law, specifically definitions of culpability vs omission, fault vs guilt as it applies to criminal law and prosecution.

He had a chance(several days)to act innocent and responsible and as far as is obvious so far he did not.

I maintain my opinion that some people pre-judge things based on no evidence whatsoever!!

 

[Archangel7]

Unfortunately, Juballee, there are some who feel that a trial is just a formality. If you also follow a couple of the other forums, you will see that mindset posted there as well. Thankfully, there are always a few others who still defend the justice system and every individual's right to a fair trial.

JMO

Unfortunately, AD, there are some who feel that a CHARGE is just a formality and the police are wrongly pushing charges on a convenient dupe. If you also follow a couple of the other posters, you will see that mindset posted here as well. Thankfully, there are always a few others who still defend the justice system and every individual's and society's right to a fair prosecution of a correctly charged criminal.

HTH

 

[Alethea Dice]

Are you saying that anyone who has formed an opinion of either innocence or guilt based on available evidence/information todate is wrong to have formed such opinion (which can of course change, depending on what additional evidence/information is forthcoming)? Are you saying that, unlike you, anyone who has formed an opinion based on such available evidence/information todate is not a defender of justice or a person's right to a fair trial?

IMO, the evidence/information we have available to us todate points to DM's guilt. My opinion is not a "mindset" I reserve the right to change that opinion at the drop of a hat AND WILL ... if evidence/information comes to light that points towards innocence. Am I a bad person for having an opinion at any point in time?

Having no opinion either way, or good people believing in innocence vs bad people having an opinion of guilt = end of discussion for fear of being accused of not believing in justice or an individual's rights? C'mon

:seeya:

No, sillybilly, I'm not saying that at all. I think we all form opinions on what we know and we all have that right to change those opinions as often as we like as more information comes out. I also think that most of us are open to that. All I'm saying is that not all people seem to be open to the possibility that something could come out at a later date, or during a trial, that could potentially change that assumption of guilt. And that opinion of a trial has been shown on various forums in a post that starts with "The trial portion of the criminal/justice system is just a formality" - quote/unquote.

JMO

 

[swedie]

Quite a few posts here not related to the truck. This is the truck thread. Sorry mods. <3

 

[swedie]

Back to the truck...

This report has me believing the third person was somehow certain it was DM. The fact DM's name is used. Wouldn't you think it would have been reported as such "a third man was contacted by someone, believed to be the accused also interested..."So did DM actually meet this person, get a look at the vehicle for sale but the owner was unable to go for the test drive at that point and time? Did the third person become wary during the viewing of his truck or through cell phone conversation, he decided not to show up for the test drive? The BO sure felt the suspects were not normal, maybe this third guy did also therefore didn't show up. MOO.

On Wednesday, Hamilton police said a third man was contacted on May 5 by Dellen Millard, 27, who was charged with first-degree murder in Bosma&#8217;s death. He is co-accused with 25-year-old Mark Smich.
That third man set up a test drive, but never showed up, Const. Debbie McGreal said. Police said that man, who was not identified, also owned a Dodge Ram 3500, but would not confirm what type of engine it had.
All three men had advertised their trucks for sale online.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2..._attempted_third_test_drive_of_dodge_ram.html

 

[Sillybilly]

Back to the truck...

This report has me believing the third person was somehow certain it was DM. The fact DM's name is used. Wouldn't you think it would have been reported as such "a third man was contacted by someone, believed to be the accused also interested..."So did DM actually meet this person, get a look at the vehicle for sale but the owner was unable to go for the test drive at that point and time? Did the third person become wary during the viewing of his truck or through cell phone conversation, he decided not to show up for the test drive? The BO sure felt the suspects were not normal, maybe this third guy did also therefore didn't show up. MOO.

On Wednesday, Hamilton police said a third man was contacted on May 5 by Dellen Millard, 27, who was charged with first-degree murder in Bosma&#8217;s death. He is co-accused with 25-year-old Mark Smich.
That third man set up a test drive, but never showed up, Const. Debbie McGreal said. Police said that man, who was not identified, also owned a Dodge Ram 3500, but would not confirm what type of engine it had.
All three men had advertised their trucks for sale online.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2..._attempted_third_test_drive_of_dodge_ram.html

Hard to say which report is more accurate ... it was initially reported by Sue Sgambati that:

Hamilton Police confirm there was a 3rd test drive attempt by same cell phone used to call. A man in TO area was called on May 5 to set up test drive for his truck but slept through the call. The test drive didn't happen. The TO area man who slept through the call for a test drive had posted his truck for sale online, just as #TimBosma did.

<bbm>

from:
https://twitter.com/suesgambati

IF we go with LE's version that he set up the test drive and slept in, sounds like the test drive may have possibly been arranged away from his residence?? Either way, that fellow must feel very lucky that he slept in.

Sue Sgambati also indicates it was the same cell phone. Sounds to me that it was LE that was certain it was DM, not necessarily the owner who may not have known (unless the caller gave a name).

 

[swedie]

Hmmm maybe the third person knows DM. Just a thought.

And then there was the information about a fourth test drive according to a "source" by LE denied that. Or could it be they didn't have that person's number show up on the burner phone. I wonder if LE ever asked Dodge dealerships within GTA to check their surveillance to see if the accused had been going around to dealerships just checking trucks out. Not necessarily talking to sales people but just going through parking lots looking. MOO.

 

[Archangel7]

Since there was some discussion about motive in the context of the truck and vice, I thought I might mention some information to consider.

Generally speaking from data and observations, auto theft is generally about 3 things.
1. Joyrides(thrills, dares, initiations, status etc.)
2. Transportation(immediate need, to be used in another crime, etc.)
3. Profit(re VIN & sell as is, part out, insurance fraud, swap for drugs, etc,)

Cars are stolen more often than trucks and when trucks are stolen, Dodge and Ford are the favorites.

Also data indicates higher percentage theft of vehicles from the street in front of homes and other places(parking garages, malls, etc.)where there was ample time allowed.

Now, given that the current case doesn't seem to fit the Joyride or Transportation categories, it does seem some type of profit or barter was likely the initial reason/motive.

Then there is the question of premeditation or simply reaction after or during another "indictable" or "capital" offense(seizure by force of the truck).

Very few people are shot in a "carjacking" because of resistance, because the perps pick the prey based on weakness, size, etc.(ring a bell?) However some are shot out of cruelty/meanness or hate.

Given the above thumbnail info, the complexity(several victims/areas were profiled) the trial run and the "shopping" around aspect, it leads me to believe premeditation to seize by force all along.

If a party demonstrates premeditation to seize by force, It is reasonable to believe they debated all possibilities and proceeded to agree to neutralize that threat ASAP or had a disparity of instant and overwhelming neutralizing force should Tim resist in any way.

Considering the above information on auto theft, people carjacked and the current case and suspects, it would seem we have a picture emerging of a likely suspect(s).

I would think younger age over an older person, a risk taker, someone that sees themselves as smarter and somewhat intelligent, a controller in control, not normally openly emotional and very little empathy.

My evaluation, no insider tips or anything. May not actually fit either current suspect's profile. I wager it does.

Your mileage may vary........

 

[Juballee]

I agree with some of what you are saying AA, the facts about what is statistically most common in truck thefts, mainly. But I disagree with the theory that TB was picked because of his size, because I don't recall him being markedly smaller than DM and MS. And I don't think that several victims and areas were profiled; one prior test drive is not several, and does not show a pattern of anything.

I also disagree on your analysis on what motives do and do not fit. I think one of the reasons people are so intrigued by DM is because he doesn't fit into any of the 3 most common motives; he doesn't appear to be a gang banger out for a joy ride, he certainly didn't need another vehicle, and he had access to far more money than the theft of an old truck could provide him, I imagine.

MS on the other hand could actually believably fit into all three common motives pretty easily, which is, in my opinion why no one really finds him so intriguing and he is not talked about and no one is posting photos of his ex girlfriends. He's already been caught committing the types of crimes gangs do (dealing and tagging), so joyriding isn't a stretch, he had no vehicle as far as I recall reading, and the amount of money a stolen truck would generate would actually make a noticible difference in his bank account, I would suspect.

 

[Alethea Dice]

I have to agree, Juballee.

AA, as I read your post, it made a lot of sense. But I have a feeling that it led me to the opposite suspect from who you were thinking of. I can see MS in both the motives and the profile outlined.

JMO

 

[Archangel7]

I have to agree, Juballee.

AA, as I read your post, it made a lot of sense. But I have a feeling that it led me to the opposite suspect from who you were thinking of. I can see MS in both the motives and the profile outlined.

JMO

I also can see MS in the motive and profile.

It was intended to be unbiased and to stimulate thought around motive vs actual Canadian theft info. Also to generate a likely "profile" considering the theft info and the actual case.

 

[swedie]

:sigh: If I had a dollar for every murderer who shocked people who knew the murderer because they would never had dreamt in a million years so and so could have actually intentionally murdered someone, gone beserk and went on a shooting spree, stalked, raped and murdered women, murdered someone over a few dollars, ect., ect., ect., I would be a multimillionaire. Things are always as the appear and people aren't always what they portray to be.

Just because DM is this and this and this does not make him any less likely to commit crimes including murder. IF the motive was for a truck and DM had enough money to purchase his own Dodge Ram truck plant even, that doesn't mean diddly if he is inflicted with a devious, sick mind. MOO.

Again, an interesting case of wealth, a devious mind and murder right here in Ontario.

His trial, which grabbed national headlines, revealed the apparently devoted family man and pillar of his church was addicted to cocaine and hookers. When his wife tried to rein him in, he contracted her murder with members of the crowd with which he consorted in seedy London bars and strip clubs.

Philip, now living in London under another name, estimated his father&#8217;s worth at nearly $30 million at one time in the 1980s.

http://www.lfpress.com/2012/12/21/b...-roadside-murder-of-hanna-buxbaum-near-komoka

 

[Variant]

:sigh: If I had a dollar for every murderer who shocked people who knew the murderer because they would never had dreamt in a million years so and so could have actually intentionally murdered someone, gone beserk and went on a shooting spree, stalked, raped and murdered women, murdered someone over a few dollars, ect., ect., ect., I would be a multimillionaire. Things are always as the appear and people aren't always what they portray to be.

Just because DM is this and this and this does not make him any less likely to commit crimes including murder. IF the motive was for a truck and DM had enough money to purchase his own Dodge Ram truck plant even, that doesn't mean diddly if he is inflicted with a devious, sick mind. MOO.

Again, an interesting case of wealth, a devious mind and murder right here in Ontario.

His trial, which grabbed national headlines, revealed the apparently devoted family man and pillar of his church was addicted to cocaine and hookers. When his wife tried to rein him in, he contracted her murder with members of the crowd with which he consorted in seedy London bars and strip clubs.

Philip, now living in London under another name, estimated his father’s worth at nearly $30 million at one time in the 1980s.

http://www.lfpress.com/2012/12/21/b...-roadside-murder-of-hanna-buxbaum-near-komoka

Remind me Swedie, is it MS or DM who is under investigation for a death and a disappearance with extensive activity that looks like LE suspect the disappearance is a death? And which one allowed a chop shop to run on his property and was a forceful negotiator in one on one deals according to MSM descriptions?

Now why would some consider MS, known for graffiti and drug dealing and not under investigation for other possible murders, to be the instigator in TB's truck targeting and his death?

OK for you to view these as rhetorical questions.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Remind me Swedie, is it MS or DM who is under investigation for a death and a disappearance with extensive activity that looks like LE suspect the disappearance is a death? And which one allowed a chop shop to run on his property and was a forceful negotiator in one on one deals according to MSM descriptions?

Now why would some consider MS, known for graffiti and drug dealing and not under investigation for other possible murders, to be the instigator in TB's truck targeting and his death?

OK for you to view these as rhetorical questions.

I haven't heard anything yet to say that LE has even found evidence that either case was a murder, let alone any evidence to show that DM committed a murder in either case.

As for the chop shop, has someone been charged for running a chop shop? Could you please provide the link? I believe LE said that there were less than 10 vehicles and parts found in the hangar. I believe there has also been about that same number of vehicles and parts from the hangar recently sold on kijiji. Since this investigation of a chop shop has never been mentioned since the original stories, I have to wonder if that part of the investigation is over. The trailer that was stolen with the Harley was reported to have already been registered to someone else. Why has there been no announcement of charges or arrests for that crime? It wouldn't be under the publication ban if it was a separate crime and separate charges.

I'm not sure it's a good argument that DM must have been the instigator based on other crimes that haven't even been determined to be crimes yet. And if being a good negotiator on business deals makes one a more likely murderer, there must be a lot of CEO's and other Type A personalities hiding some major crimes in their closets.

JMO

 

[Eldee]

I agree with some of what you are saying AA, the facts about what is statistically most common in truck thefts, mainly. But I disagree with the theory that TB was picked because of his size, because I don't recall him being markedly smaller than DM and MS. And I don't think that several victims and areas were profiled; one prior test drive is not several, and does not show a pattern of anything.

I also disagree on your analysis on what motives do and do not fit. I think one of the reasons people are so intrigued by DM is because he doesn't fit into any of the 3 most common motives; he doesn't appear to be a gang banger out for a joy ride, he certainly didn't need another vehicle, and he had access to far more money than the theft of an old truck could provide him, I imagine.

MS on the other hand could actually believably fit into all three common motives pretty easily, which is, in my opinion why no one really finds him so intriguing and he is not talked about and no one is posting photos of his ex girlfriends. He's already been caught committing the types of crimes gangs do (dealing and tagging), so joyriding isn't a stretch, he had no vehicle as far as I recall reading, and the amount of money a stolen truck would generate would actually make a noticible difference in his bank account, I would suspect.

OK then, so what is it that MS could have on DM that would make DM help him out? If DM is an up and up kind of guy ( like a lot of people still think ) and MS needed money so badly that they were going to steal a truck, don't you think DM would have helped him out in some way rather than to steal a truck. This whole thing is still making no sense to me. DM owed MS a big favour for something nefarious MS did for him. Maybe?? Those two are somehow linked and I don't think it is a friendship in the normal sense of the word. Perhaps the disappearance of LB and the death of WM has a lot to do with it. just my opinion and just wondering aloud.

 

[loveisthemovement]

I can't recall and am already lost over in the Hannah Graham forum so forgive me for not wading through everything before asking.

I think of the Bosmas often. We lived a short drive from the Bosmas and have sold a car on Kijiji (and we own a black Dodge Ram, but I digress). When we sold our car we had potential buyers leave a piece of I.D. when taking the car for test drives. I feel like that method was common practice. Did Tim insist on accompanying them on the test drive or did they insist? And what occurred during the other test drives?

 

[andreww]

OK then, so what is it that MS could have on DM that would make DM help him out? If DM is an up and up kind of guy ( like a lot of people still think ) and MS needed money so badly that they were going to steal a truck, don't you think DM would have helped him out in some way rather than to steal a truck. This whole thing is still making no sense to me. DM owed MS a big favour for something nefarious MS did for him. Maybe?? Those two are somehow linked and I don't think it is a friendship in the normal sense of the word. Perhaps the disappearance of LB and the death of WM has a lot to do with it. just my opinion and just wondering aloud.

Your theory makes a lot of sense. DM may have felt obligated to help his pal out, although I doubt that any threat had to me made by MS. If he had indeed assisted in the murder of LB, DM couldn't very well turn him down in his request to help jack a truck. Possibly MS wanted to have his own vehicle for the upcoming Baja race? I don't think they would have been so particular about the model of the truck if it was simply a matter of MS wanting to pad his bank account.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tamarind]

I agree with some of what you are saying AA, the facts about what is statistically most common in truck thefts, mainly. But I disagree with the theory that TB was picked because of his size, because I don't recall him being markedly smaller than DM and MS. And I don't think that several victims and areas were profiled; one prior test drive is not several, and does not show a pattern of anything.

I also disagree on your analysis on what motives do and do not fit. I think one of the reasons people are so intrigued by DM is because he doesn't fit into any of the 3 most common motives; he doesn't appear to be a gang banger out for a joy ride, he certainly didn't need another vehicle, and he had access to far more money than the theft of an old truck could provide him, I imagine.

MS on the other hand could actually believably fit into all three common motives pretty easily, which is, in my opinion why no one really finds him so intriguing and he is not talked about and no one is posting photos of his ex girlfriends. He's already been caught committing the types of crimes gangs do (dealing and tagging), so joyriding isn't a stretch, he had no vehicle as far as I recall reading, and the amount of money a stolen truck would generate would actually make a noticible difference in his bank account, I would suspect.

I agree, except we need to remember that there could have been a third party and there may also be evidence that we have not been made aware of. It seems that MS fits the categories listed but was it in fact him? I find it hard to believe that DM is guilty based on these stated categories for the reasons you have said, but I still feel there is something missing in this case and that makes me think that we should keep the 'innocent unless proven guilty' viewpoint for both accused. I for one am very interested in the facts that may come out at trial (s).

 

[Sillybilly]

and that makes me think that we should keep the 'innocent unless proven guilty' viewpoint for both accused.

<rsbm>

There is not only one "viewpoint" allowed here for discussion.

The right to the presumption of innocence in no way interferes with the general public&#8217;s right to have an opinion. The public, as members of a free and democratic society, can state our personal opinions because we are not part of judicial proceedings. Our Charter right is guaranteed as a &#8220;Fundamental freedom&#8221; which states that everyone has the fundamental freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression

Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association

The right of an accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is a principle within the due process of law. In the Charter, it is a legal right within the section entitled &#8220;Proceedings in criminal and penal matters&#8221;.

Proceedings in criminal and penal matters &#8230;

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ...

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal &#8230;

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c.../const/page-15.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

 

[Carli]

<rsbm>

There is not only one "viewpoint" allowed here for discussion.

The right to the presumption of innocence in no way interferes with the general public&#8217;s right to have an opinion. The public, as members of a free and democratic society, can state our personal opinions because we are not part of judicial proceedings. Our Charter right is guaranteed as a &#8220;Fundamental freedom&#8221; which states that everyone has the fundamental freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression




The right of an accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is a principle within the due process of law. In the Charter, it is a legal right within the section entitled &#8220;Proceedings in criminal and penal matters&#8221;.



http://webcache.googleusercontent.c.../const/page-15.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

Not to put too fine a point on it but surely this is a matter of degree, is it not, if not common sense. For instance, while indeed a fundamental freedom granted us in this wonderful country is that of freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, it does not include the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre (as has often been quoted) and thus endanger the lives of others. There is a most interesting WIKI about this phrase at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

While it does (theoretically) provide the "right" to slander and libel another person, the qualifier is that that person is well within their rights to sue you in response or, at least, to attempt to do so. (Such suits have become very complicated in these days of public anonymity afforded by the internet.)

If one truly wanted to continue with this examination one might say that a murderer has every right, as a fundamental freedom, to associate, assemble, share beliefs, opinions and expressions with other murderers and, by extension, to murder people. Silly, of course. That is not the purpose or intent of the Charter.

As you point out, anyone has the right to express their opinions about their neighbors, their bosses, incarcerated persons, ugly babies in the family, and anybody else - to publish those opinions by writing them up for the daily beacon - to throw eggs at their victim's houses - to do whatever they want including, most importantly, to bear the consequences of their actions.

Should, in "expressing" their opinion, they step over the bounds of the law and engage in a criminal act to more fully convey their views, then they, themselves may find themselves relying on the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty - a right which is at the very foundation of our just and democratic society.
IMO. MOO. IMHO