Suspect #1: Dellen Millard *Charged* 1st Deg Murder 15 May 2013 #2

[Eldee]

:floorlaugh:


It's also weird for people to take the stairs when there is an elevator or get off of their bus a stop or two early and walk for the exercise, but people do such things without being up to something all the time.

When someone walks up the stairs instead of taking an elevator and no dead body is found, then it seems perfectly normal. When someone gets off the bus two stops early for the excersize and no dead body is found, then it seems normal.
But when someone parks their Yukon all the way down the driveway so it isn't noticed and then walks all the way up the driveway and later a dead body is found, then yes it is a little strange and unexplainable then. MOO

 

[Blomquist]

When someone walks up the stairs instead of taking an elevator and no dead body is found, then it seems perfectly normal. When someone gets off the bus two stops early for the excersize and no dead body is found, then it seems normal.
But when someone parks their Yukon all the way down the driveway so it isn't noticed and then walks all the way up the driveway and later a dead body is found, then yes it is a little strange and unexplainable then. MOO

AS yet we have no confirmation that anyone or anything was waiting all the way down the driveway.... and we have no confirmation that anything or anyone who may, or may not have been waiting, had anything to do with a body that was found days later, regardless if said body in it's live form was last seen walking/driving from the driveway. JMO MOO

 

[Juballee]

When someone walks up the stairs instead of taking an elevator and no dead body is found, then it seems perfectly normal. When someone gets off the bus two stops early for the excersize and no dead body is found, then it seems normal.
But when someone parks their Yukon all the way down the driveway so it isn't noticed and then walks all the way up the driveway and later a dead body is found, then yes it is a little strange and unexplainable then. MOO

But, again, if he didn't t do it, then the fact that he walked down the driveway is moot. When we say all the way down the driveway, how long are we talking? Is it not about the distance most people end up walking when parking in a parking lot, at, say, a Walmart? Anyone who has ever lived in the country can tell you that sometimes you just don't go down everyone's driveway for many reasons. Sometimes you think that there might not be room to turn around or you may have a dog with you who is bound to aggravate the home owner's dog and you park on the road out of respect. Or a driveway looks too muddy or private, there are many reasons, maybe they just wanted to stretch their legs after the long drive from Toronto.

Say you work in an office, and bought a coffee off of the coffee barista before your usual walk up the stairs, and then later she was found murdered in the stairway, does that automatically make you her killer? What if you happened to be the last one to see her alive according to a witness? What if Phil in accounting who secretly hates you killed her and he knows where you live and put the murder weapon at your house while you were at work, for example, how would you prove it wasn't you?

The reason circumstantial evidence is called circumstantial is that it is also just as likely to be a mere coincidence and only looks suspicious because of the other circumstances surrounding it. Taken upon its own it would not be necessarily suspicious, just as walking up a driveway would not normally be an unusual thing except for the circumstances with which he was accused of later. If either if the Bosma's thought that it was so unusual at the time, they could have easily have called off the test drive, but there is no report that they found it odd. Even the RBEG only seemed to find it odd after being found by the police and informed of the other circumstances, otherwise he would have come forward about the suspicious test drive a few days earlier, I believe.

And logically, if they were so concerned about being recognized for their vehicle, why then would they both go to the door, completely undisguised, unconcerned about being recognized for their persons or their clothing? It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Archangel7]

Glad you got verified AA! I could tell from your posts you had more knowledge than one gets from just reading the info somewhere!!

Thank you for your kind words of support Skatergirl, it is genuinely appreciated.

 

[robynhood]

It is still my opinion that just being the last person to see someone alive does not necessarily make someone a murderer. If anyone else here has ever gone through the process of trying to identify someone you saw only briefly in an official police indenitfication process, you can verify that it is jot like a line up on a police show. You are shown a small stack a photos that you may look at one time and one time only. You may only look at one at a time, you may not go back and compare one picture to another or look at them side by side. It is very, very difficult to do. Although I imagine seeing someone's picture plastered all over ever newspaper and in every channel might make it easier to identify later.

Finger prints could also be on TB's truck and that would not necessarily mean that that person had killed TB, only that they had driven it in a test drive. We don't know who purchased the incinerator, where it was stored or if it was used to dispose of Tb's remains.

YOU MISSED ALL of my points...IMO...Sharlene Bosma did not need a line up to REMEMBER ...the face of evil who smiled at her....! ...and all you others will SEE this when it goes to court...IMO it SHALL be proven without a shadow of a DOUBT...and I will GLADLY be here tweeting it again as a Rockin robyn does well,....the end from robynhood....I am with Swede holiday time.....!:seeya:

 

[Archangel7]

<snip>

If you re-read Archangel's post, they made reference to others hinting at LE involvement (which I have also noticed). AA did not "instantly assume" that to be the case, but was responding to that particular concern.

Thank you SB, you have good reading comprehension and you are correct. My post was to add some perspective to show the difficult task of set ups/frame ups without leaving any trace of evidence by the third party. In addition, if a conspiracy theory was actually for once true, how difficult it is to sustain having numerous agencies, departments, and labs, go along with it.

 

[Juballee]

YOU MISSED ALL of my points...IMO...Sharlene Bosma did not need a line up to REMEMBER ...the face of evil who smiled at her....! ...and all you others will SEE this when it goes to court...IMO it SHALL be proven without a shadow of a DOUBT...and I will GLADLY be here tweeting it again as a Rockin robyn does well,....the end from robynhood....I am with Swede holiday time.....!:seeya:

I think perhaps you missed my point. It is very difficult to actually identify someone correctly the way that it is done these days, and just for reference, the person I had to identify smiled at me and spoke to me for a few minutes before endangering my entire family, and I thought for sure that I would never forget that smiling face. Until I had to go through the identification process, where, in the photos that you can only see once, briefly, the potential suspects are not smiling, and they are nearly impossible to positively identify without direct comparison to see which one looks the most like the image in my head. Although, again, I did not have the media to help me recognize the face of evil again when I saw it by burning it into every tv screen and newspaper headline for weeks.

And also, again, logically, even if she had a photo of them as the last person to see TB alive, or video footage of them leaving together, it does not mean that DM killed him, only that he was the last person she saw TB with. You could be the last person to be seen with someone who died, it doesn't make you a murderer automatically. We haven't even heard DM's side of the story yet, but most it seems have fully condemned him without ever hearing a single word from him. Catch phrases like "the face of evil that smiled at her" are great at swaying people's emotions, but the hard truth and facts acknowledge that eyewitness testimony is highly overrated and often flatly wrong. (The Innocence Project reports eyewitness misidentification occurs in approximately 75% of convictions that are overturned).

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony"]Eyewitness testimony - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[Blomquist]

I think perhaps you missed my point. It is very difficult to actually identify someone correctly the way that it is done these days, and just for reference, the person I had to identify smiled at me and spoke to me for a few minutes before endangering my entire family, and I thought for sure that I would never forget that smiling face. Until I had to go through the identification process, where, in the photos that you can only see once, briefly, the potential suspects are not smiling, and they are nearly impossible to positively identify without direct comparison to see which one looks the most like the image in my head. Although, again, I did not have the media to help me recognize the face of evil again when I saw it by burning it into every tv screen and newspaper headline for weeks.

And also, again, logically, even if she had a photo of them as the last person to see TB alive, or video footage of them leaving together, it does not mean that DM killed him, only that he was the last person she saw TB with. You could be the last person to be seen with someone who died, it doesn't make you a murderer automatically. We haven't even heard DM's side of the story yet, but most it seems have fully condemned him without ever hearing a single word from him. Catch phrases like "the face of evil that smiled at her" are great at swaying people's emotions, but the hard truth and facts acknowledge that eyewitness testimony is highly overrated and often flatly wrong. (The Innocence Project reports eyewitness misidentification occurs in approximately 75% of convictions that are overturned).

Eyewitness testimony - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree with you.... just because someone chants something regularly like a mantra doesn`t mean its the `gospel`truth.... I like the saying `: `Methinks thou dost protest too much`..... (in both meanings, Shakespearean and present,of the word protest....)

I fail to see how the face of evil smiled at anyone... as far as I am aware no-one has been convicted of this murder, and until such time as they have its still open play.... MSM tend to get a line and milk it for all its worth
JMO

 

[Juballee]

Thank you SB, you have good reading comprehension and you are correct. My post was to add some perspective to show the difficult task of set ups/frame ups without leaving any trace of evidence by the third party. In addition, if a conspiracy theory was actually for once true, how difficult it is to sustain having numerous agencies, departments, and labs, go along with it.

If DNA evidence that TB was killed by someone other than DM were obliterated by fire or another form of complete destruction, no agencies would have to co-ordinate a conspiracy, would they? My post was to show that it doesn't take an entire corrupt system to frame someone in this circumstance, just one person with some determination, a truck, a computer and some matches.

I would still appreciate hearing a response to how LE would be proceeding if they had some evidence that doesn't match their theory, or if they have not yet been able to tie everything in with DM in regards to timing and such. Or how forensics can exonerate DM if there is another killer, if all the other killer's evidence has been burned until it ceases to exist? As far as LE has stated, they are not even sure yet if there is another suspect on the loose or not, how can we be sure that they would have found evidence to prove it wasn't DM if he is innocent? The fact that they don't even know how many people were there that night does not give me confidence that they know precisely what happened at all. I feel that there is a lot more to this story, and it seems like a lot of people feel that way, except maybe LE and the media, in my opinion.

 

[cansleuther]

I fail to see how the face of evil smiled at anyone.

Could SB have possibly meant that "evil smiled at her" in a figurative sense, rather than implying that DM and/or MS literally smiled at her?

In an early HPS press release SB says it was TB who smiled at her before leaving that fateful night:

As you know, I watched my husband drive away just after 9 o’clock Monday night. He smiled at me and said he’ll be right back. I haven’t seen him since.

What happened to TB during or after that test drive was certainly the work of pure evil, so IMO it is completely understandable SB would feel that the devil had smiled at her that night.

http://www.hamiltonpolice.on.ca/HPS/News/timbosmafamily.htm

 

[Blomquist]

Could SB have possibly meant that "evil smiled at her" in a figurative sense, rather than implying that DM and/or MS literally smiled at her?

In an early HPS press release SB says it was TB who smiled at her before leaving that fateful night:



What happened to TB during or after that test drive was certainly the work of pure evil, so IMO it is completely understandable SB would feel that the devil had smiled at her that night.

http://www.hamiltonpolice.on.ca/HPS/News/timbosmafamily.htm

Like I said earlier...IMO MSM will take a line and milk it for all it`s worth... as you say this `smiled at me`reference was initially about TB...and now its about DM or maybe MS.

Seems like a weird expression to say the devil smiled at me ... but if as you say it was figurative in that she lost her spouse that night...then it`s possibly figurative.....

 

[Archangel7]

Exculpatory evidence would by definition, either justify or excuse a contravention of law. So if the evidence leads elsewhere, LE will look elsewhere.

LE has to present evidence that shows the accused is properly and correctly charged. The Crown determines/confirms the appropriate charges and then must PROVE it in court before a Judge and/or Jury. If the evidence were to point to someone else, DM and MS wouldn't be in jail at this point in time. They aren't even out on bail either.

LE stated a suspicion of other suspects at the begining of the investigation, and that may be revised as evidence points one way or the other.

Not everything is known instantly at the begining.

There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns &#8211; there are things we do not know we don't know........Donald Rumsfeld
lol

 

[Blomquist]

:angel2:

Exculpatory evidence would by definition, either justify or excuse a contravention of law. So if the evidence leads elsewhere, LE will look elsewhere.

LE has to present evidence that shows the accused is properly and correctly charged. The Crown determines/confirms the appropriate charges and then must PROVE it in court before a Judge and/or Jury. If the evidence were to point to someone else, DM and MS wouldn't be in jail at this point in time. They aren't even out on bail either.

LE stated a suspicion of other suspects at the begining of the investigation, and that may be revised as evidence points one way or the other.

Not everything is known instantly at the begining.

There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know........Donald Rumsfeld
lol

I`m sorry but I place no credence in anything Donald Rumsfeld says....

I think you probably know as well as I that LE will throw plenty of mud at an accused in the hope it sticks. Not all of their evidence is factual. They will add in a bunch of circumstantial piffle as well as anything they can make sound bad to help glue the case.

And yes they will revise their case to fit the required mold.... IMO


There maybe unknown unknowns... but there are also things we know that we know - Blomquist

oke:

 

[Juballee]

Exculpatory evidence would by definition, either justify or excuse a contravention of law. So if the evidence leads elsewhere, LE will look elsewhere.

LE has to present evidence that shows the accused is properly and correctly charged. The Crown determines/confirms the appropriate charges and then must PROVE it in court before a Judge and/or Jury. If the evidence were to point to someone else, DM and MS wouldn't be in jail at this point in time. They aren't even out on bail either.

LE stated a suspicion of other suspects at the begining of the investigation, and that may be revised as evidence points one way or the other.

Not everything is known instantly at the begining.

There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know........Donald Rumsfeld
lol

I ask again, though, if the exculpatory evidence that should have lead LE elsewhere was destroyed with the burning of the body and the removal of the truck seats, what is there to point to someone else now and release DM and MS from jail? How much other, exculpatory evidence would be required to convince the judge that LE does not have enough evidence to properly charge them, and what if it was just as circumstantial as the evidence against them so far?

 

[RandomName479]

I ask again, though, if the exculpatory evidence that should have lead LE elsewhere was destroyed with the burning of the body and the removal of the truck seats, what is there to point to someone else now and release DM and MS from jail? How much other, exculpatory evidence would be required to convince the judge that LE does not have enough evidence to properly charge them, and what if it was just as circumstantial as the evidence against them so far?

We have zero way of knowing that the evidence that was destroyed would have been exculpatory to DM or MS. I think that's a big leap. The evidence as I understand it....DM and MS arrived to test drive the truck. TB was never seen alive again. DM was arrested (seems to be due to eye witness id bc of his tattoo). It was later revealed that DM's truck was following TB that night (so IMO def a third suspect). TB's truck found in DM's trailer at DM's mothers house. TB's body found at DM's farm. An incinerator was purchased by DM (what legit purpose? No farm animals...) so is what you're saying that bc some evidence has been destroyed that that evidence would have cleared DM and therefore he musnt be guilty?

 

[Sillybilly]

We have zero way of knowing that the evidence that was destroyed would have been exculpatory to DM or MS. I think that's a big leap. The evidence as I understand it....DM and MS arrived to test drive the truck. TB was never seen alive again. DM was arrested (seems to be due to eye witness id bc of his tattoo). It was later revealed that DM's truck was following TB that night (so IMO def a third suspect). TB's truck found in DM's trailer at DM's mothers house. TB's body found at DM's farm. An incinerator was purchased by DM (what legit purpose? No farm animals...) so is what you're saying that bc some evidence has been destroyed that that evidence would have cleared DM and therefore he musnt be guilty?

<bbm>

It has also been said to the effect that because the evidence points towards DM, it must not be him. Go figger ?

Almost holiday time for sillybilly too I think. Hold the applause please

 

[Snoofo]

Like I said earlier...IMO MSM will take a line and milk it for all it`s worth... as you say this `smiled at me`reference was initially about TB...and now its about DM or maybe MS.

Seems like a weird expression to say the devil smiled at me ... but if as you say it was figurative in that she lost her spouse that night...then it`s possibly figurative.....

You mean the same media who turned a couple drops of menstrual blood near a toilet on a boat into large amounts of blood all over the boat? Which reminds me, OPP would have either questioned DM to get the names of the two girls, or the two girls stepped up voluntarily to confirm he did not murder them.
:facepalm:

 

[bessie]

Deliberately misrepresenting the meaning of another poster's statement is not in line with the rule which states members should disagree "in a mature and civil manner". Violating posts will be removed, and posting privileges will be interrupted if the problem persists.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8364858#post8364858"]Rules Etiquette & Information - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[Archangel7]

Science has found no way to forensicly test nonexistant exculpatory evidence.

That would be however, once again, a golden opportunity for DM to use his vocal chords, but his silence is as telling as is the missing "evidence?"

 

[Sillybilly]

Science has found no way to forensicly test nonexistant exculpatory evidence.

That would be however, once again, a golden opportunity for DM to use his vocal chords, but his silence is as telling as is the missing "evidence?"

:floorlaugh: Does this mean we now have to free all those previously convicted on existing evidence who must now be declared innocent due to non-existent evidence?

I am trying to find a recipe using ingredients I do not have available but cannot find one, so am off to cook supper with ingredients I have available