Tim Bosma: Dellen Millard & Mark Smich chgd w/Murder; Christina Noudga, Accessory

[SnooperDuper]

Police allege Noudga knew Millard had killed Bosma and assisted in his “escape” last May 9, three days after Bosma disappeared, said Crown Attorney Tony Leitch.

[...]

Leitch said Noudga made a statement to police after she was arrested Thursday, but could not say whether she is being co-operative.

“We don’t usually arrest co-operating witnesses,” Leitch said.

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

 

[inbetweendoors]

So that may kind of narrow down what she is *alleged* to have done then...maybe...? Providing false information? I think it was established previously that simply not answering LE's questions wouldn't constitute any wrongdoing on her part. Morality aside, of course. A false alibi would seem the most likely to me at this point...IF she said anything at all. All MOO.

***

Kind of OT, but from previous discussions about CN hiring a lawyer shortly after DM's arrest, I honestly believe that if MY significant other was just arrested for murder, (and at CN's age) my mother sure as heck would advise me to get, or get me a lawyer, because of course LE is going to come around asking questions, and a person should know what their rights are.
OTOH, if, in some moment of 21-year-old "awakening of conscience" she told her parents what she knew or what she even helped DM do (to warrant this charge), then they would OF COURSE bring in a lawyer.

*Note: The CN lawyer thing wasn't directed at any post in particular, I've been catching up on these TB/LM/WM/DM/MS/CN/MWJ (wow...) threads for days and am finally ready to make some comments/observations. :newbie:

 

[inbetweendoors]

I'm curious if posters on here have deduced when, exactly, DM would have been on LE's radar? Not his arrest, we know they spoke with him earlier that day, but when they actually had a name and not just a burner phone number or tattoo to go on. Not sure we'd ever be privy to that until witnesses testify, if even then.

ETA: Presumably LE would have called CN's number on the 9th when they received the burner phone PO (also presuming her number had been called or had called the burner phone). DM's name wouldn't be a huge leap from there. If they immediately brought her to Hamilton for questioning...and again also presuming she told them anything at that point, or conversely if she lied, there's your charge. If she told them nothing I'm sure they could have still found him through the social media parade that is/was their lives. All 100% MOO.

I have so many unanswered questions about that darn burner phone... chiefly, where is it?!

 

[Snoofo]

Leitch said Noudga made a statement to police after she was arrested Thursday, but could not say whether she is being co-operative.“We don’t usually arrest co-operating witnesses,” Leitch said.

Thanks Snooper Duper for highlighting the above in your last post. What I get from Leitch's comment is nothing. He doesn't actually answer the question negatively or positively. She could be cooperating but deal-making for a lesser charge. Just because they don't usually arrest a cooperating witness does not mean they didn't this time. Also, she was arrested, then made a statement to police; if that statement(s) after arrest WAS cooperative, she was already arrested and doesn't nullify Leitch's vague and uninformative reply.

How does anybody know when CN retained a lawyer? Obviously it was reported somewhere that she lawyered up very early, but where and how was that info obtained?

 

[SnooperDuper]

Leitch said Noudga made a statement to police after she was arrested Thursday, but could not say whether she is being co-operative.“We don’t usually arrest co-operating witnesses,” Leitch said.

Thanks Snooper Duper for highlighting the above in your last post. What I get from Leitch's comment is nothing. He doesn't actually answer the question negatively or positively. She could be cooperating but deal-making for a lesser charge. Just because they don't usually arrest a cooperating witness does not mean they didn't this time. Also, she was arrested, then made a statement to police; if that statement(s) after arrest WAS cooperative, she was already arrested and doesn't nullify Leitch's vague and uninformative reply.

How does anybody know when CN retained a lawyer? Obviously it was reported somewhere that she lawyered up very early, but where and how was that info obtained?

What I get is that she has been characterized as a witness

“At this stage we’re opposed to bail,” said Mr. Leitch, outside of court.

“We, too, are going to get full disclosure from the police and review it… On what I’ve seen so far, we’re opposed to her release on bail.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...al-killers-girlfriend-makes-court-appearance/

From May 15, 2013

The Crown has said Millard's girlfriend may be an important witness in this case.

http://www.cjbk.com/local-news/2013/05/15/dellen-millard-officially-charged-in-court-to

Noudga has been on the radar of homicide investigators for quite a long time. A source close to the investigation has told The Spectator she retained criminal lawyer Paul Mergler of Toronto long before she was arrested Thursday and charged with being an accessory after the fact to murder.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4...w-as-christina-noudga-makes-court-appearance/

According to sources, Noudga did not talk to police last year.

http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/tag/dellen-millard/page/2

 

[deugirtni]

I don't know if this is correct or if it has been noticed before (or if it is meaningful), but I happened to notice this (BBM in article below); keyword=former:

Bail Hearing Continues For Woman Accused Of Being An Accessory In Bosma Murder
Toronto, ON, Canada / Talk Radio AM640
Danny Longo
July 31, 2014 04:08 am

The woman accused of being an accessory after the fact in the murder of Tim Bosma could be freed from jail today.

22 year old Christine Noudga’s bail hearing continues this morning.

She is Dellen Millard’s former girlfriend.

The details of the hearing are under a publication ban.

The trial of Millard and Mark Smich could begin as early as next year.

http://www.640toronto.com/2014/07/31/26851/

 

[deugirtni]

LE is stating that CN's arrest for 'accessory' is relating to something she did on May 9, 2013, and yet she was not incarcerated/arrested until April.. 10(?), 2014 (almost one year later). The same week that CN was arrested, DM and MS were slapped with additional murder charges. What came to light during this one week to prompt LE to make these additional arrests?

 

[deugirtni]

I have been reading up on what exactly 'accessory after the fact in a murder charge' can mean, and found that it can mean helped the perpetrator to 'escape detection', not just help to escape physically, and it can include providing a false alibi. Just for info.

 

[Carli]

LE is stating that CN's arrest for 'accessory' is relating to something she did on May 9, 2013, and yet she was not incarcerated/arrested until April.. 10(?), 2014 (almost one year later). The same week that CN was arrested, DM and MS were slapped with additional murder charges. What came to light during this one week to prompt LE to make these additional arrests?

I have been reading up on what exactly 'accessory after the fact in a murder charge' can mean, and found that it can mean helped the perpetrator to 'escape detection', not just help to escape physically, and it can include providing a false alibi. Just for info.

Hmmm. So possibly we've been barking up the wrong tree when trying to link CN with the TB case. Perhaps her alibi or other misrepresentation was considered by LE to have hampered or aborted their investigation into the deaths of WM and / or LB?

Still we're left with the comment that her arrest has to do with something she did in Hamilton on May 9. I wonder if this could refer to testimony she provided to LE in Hamilton. Then again, she doesn't live there so either they would have brought her in for questioning or she approached them with bogus information?

So, again, is it possible that her concerns had nothing to do with the Bosma case but, upon hearing that her bf was arrested, she went to Hamilton police with an alibi to help him "escape" being charged with the deaths of his father and LB? MOO.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Hmmm. So possibly we've been barking up the wrong tree when trying to link CN with the TB case. Perhaps her alibi or other misrepresentation was considered by LE to have hampered or aborted their investigation into the deaths of WM and / or LB?

Still we're left with the comment that her arrest has to do with something she did in Hamilton on May 9. I wonder if this could refer to testimony she provided to LE in Hamilton. Then again, she doesn't live there so either they would have brought her in for questioning or she approached them with bogus information?

So, again, is it possible that her concerns had nothing to do with the Bosma case but, upon hearing that her bf was arrested, she went to Hamilton police with an alibi to help him "escape" being charged with the deaths of his father and LB? MOO.

A bail hearing being held in a Hamilton court for Christina Noudga, the Toronto-area woman who is charged as an accessory after the fact in the death of Ancaster, Ont., man Tim Bosma, will continue Thursday.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...aring-underway-in-tim-bosma-slaying-1.2722912

 

[Carli]

Thanks, Snoop. You're right. It was reported there and, as I see now, at numerous MSM sources that her charges relate to the death of TB. So, I can't figure out what's being referred to as some kind of incident on May 9 /13. Maybe LE was just doing housekeeping last April, rounding up alleged participants and levelling various charges? Beats me. IMO.

 

[Juballee]

My guess would be that at some point CN was called from the burner phone, and when LE spoke to all the numbers that they obtained in relation to the burner phone, she may have lied and said that she didn't know who called her from that number. But in reality, if that was the case, then she may have truly forgotten who had called from that number, especially if it was a while ago or didn't happen frequently. That could also be true if DM had called her from a phone that belonged to MS, or someone else, sometime when his phone was unavailable, though, so that would make it a less than solid charge, and could be why they waited almost a year to charge her for it. My opinion only.

 

[inbetweendoors]

My guess would be that at some point CN was called from the burner phone, and when LE spoke to all the numbers that they obtained in relation to the burner phone, she may have lied and said that she didn't know who called her from that number. But in reality, if that was the case, then she may have truly forgotten who had called from that number, especially if it was a while ago or didn't happen frequently. That could also be true if DM had called her from a phone that belonged to MS, or someone else, sometime when his phone was unavailable, though, so that would make it a less than solid charge, and could be why they waited almost a year to charge her for it. My opinion only.

Excellent point! LE received the results of the burner phone PO May 9th, so that sounds like a really plausible scenario. IMO.

Do you think LE would have stated that they were LE when calling? This charge specifically implies that she knew DM had murdered TB at this point. Hmmm...she must have said *something* untrue to them, or lied by omission more likely, if it's been stated that she "did not talk to police last year"? Either way, it sounds like they have some kind of proof that she knew about DM's alleged involvement in TB's murder. MOO. But then how does the "in the Hamilton area" factor in, or again, maybe we're reading too much into that. I only found the quote from the one National Post source...

Do bail hearings of this sort usually take this long? Is it the amount of evidence the Crown has to provide, and then I assume the defense gets the chance for rebuttal (?) that could be dragging this out for longer than, IMO, would be expected? Maybe I'm off base and this is totally normal. Please correct me if so

 

[studyer]

Do you think LE would have stated that they were LE when calling? This charge specifically implies that she knew DM had murdered TB at this point. Hmmm...she must have said *something* untrue to them, or lied by omission more likely, if it's been stated that she "did not talk to police last year"? Either way, it sounds like they have some kind of proof that she knew about DM's alleged involvement in TB's murder. MOO. But then how does the "in the Hamilton area" factor in, or again, maybe we're reading too much into that. I only found the quote from the one National Post source...

What if, though, this is related to email or text conversations that they only discovered much later? LE stated that the investigation involved one of the largest computer confiscation in their history (IIRC) and leads me to be think that there might have been communications uncovered, that could be date-stamped.

 

[matou]

New Ann Brocklehurst blog post: http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/2014/08/bail-decision-for-christina-noudga-on-friday-august-8.html

Also in the courtroom were Detective Sergeant Matt Kavanagh of the Hamilton police homicide unit, who headed up the investigation into Tim Bosma’s murder. He was almost always seated with one to three other police officers at the back of the room.
Ravin Pillay, part of the legal team defending Dellen Millard, attended all three days of the hearing, usually in the company of one or two young lawyers or law students.

 

[hopingforjustice]

back a while ago, I asked the question if someone had the obligation to tell the police what they knew if asked and I was answered (post 789 of this thread) that they are not. So I don't see how the charge that is laid upon her could have resulted from questions asked and not answered or lied about based on the this. I feel that something physically must have been done to warrant this charge.

Quote Originally Posted by hopingforjustice View Post
So is this saying that if I am asked specific questions by LE with regard to a crime that I have knowledge of, that I am not obligated by any kind of "legal oath" to tell what I know? That I can just walk away and say "don't know" ?

I think that there has to be a difference between offering up a statement voluntarily and being questioned with specifics and not complying . I believe it was reported on this board that CN refused to talk to LE when questioned. I will look for the link.

That is why I place my doubt in CN.

JMO
Yes, that's correct. Unless they are going to arrest you or have grounds to detain you, you are free to walk away. And if they are going to arrest you, all the more reason to say nothing until you speak to a lawyer.

Initial Contact Questioning by Police

If the police have stopped you and told you why, they will ask you some basic questions to determine if a crime has been committed and if you are a suspect. You do not have to answer them.
If you are just a bystander, the police may just be looking for witnesses. It is up to you to respond or not.
http://www.canlaw.com/criminal/arrest.htm#.U5FPkPldX-s

http://www.cleo.on.ca/en/publication...ce-question-me

 

[inbetweendoors]

back a while ago, I asked the question if someone had the obligation to tell the police what they knew if asked and I was answered (post 789 of this thread) that they are not. So I don't see how the charge that is laid upon her could have resulted from questions asked and not answered or lied about based on the this. <snip>

<rsbm>

Yeah I said the same thing about "not answering" LE's Qs in post 1302.

So that may kind of narrow down what she is *alleged* to have done then...maybe...? Providing false information? I think it was established previously that simply not answering LE's questions wouldn't constitute any wrongdoing on her part. Morality aside, of course. A false alibi would seem the most likely to me at this point...IF she said anything at all. All MOO.

 

[SnooperDuper]

LE is stating that CN's arrest for 'accessory' is relating to something she did on May 9, 2013, and yet she was not incarcerated/arrested until April.. 10(?), 2014 (almost one year later). The same week that CN was arrested, DM and MS were slapped with additional murder charges. What came to light during this one week to prompt LE to make these additional arrests?

LE had CN on their radar from nearly the beginning. 9 days after the murder LE said that she “may be an important witness”. I think the timing of her charge has to do with the fact that the investigative portion wrapped up at that time. That is, LE held off on charging her with the hope that she would come forward as a witness. When the investigation was complete and LE was ready to place the additional charges against DM and MS, CN’s time to come clean was up, and she was charged as well.

There might have been some strategy on the part of LE here as well, because with CN out of custody, DM was able to attempt to contact her, and LE would certainly have been monitoring her communications.

“Before she was arrested, Dellen Millard consistently tried to send Noudga messages through the people who visited him in jail despite the fact that she was on a list of people with whom he was ordered to have no contact.”

http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/tag/christina-noudga

My guess would be that at some point CN was called from the burner phone, and when LE spoke to all the numbers that they obtained in relation to the burner phone, she may have lied and said that she didn't know who called her from that number. But in reality, if that was the case, then she may have truly forgotten who had called from that number, especially if it was a while ago or didn't happen frequently. That could also be true if DM had called her from a phone that belonged to MS, or someone else, sometime when his phone was unavailable, though, so that would make it a less than solid charge, and could be why they waited almost a year to charge her for it. My opinion only.

The thing is, you can’t sentence someone to 25 years in prison just for taking a phone call, which can easily be dismissed, and if it were as simple as that, it wouldn’t have taken 3 days to go over evidence in the bail hearing. Remember CN’s lawyer PM received "voluminous disclosure":

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4...r-must-be-an-eternity-for-tim-bosma-s-family/

If all CN did was take a phone call, PM would not have said he “needs time to sift through [the disclosure]”…and three months’ time at that (May 6 to now).

Excellent point! LE received the results of the burner phone PO May 9th, so that sounds like a really plausible scenario. IMO.

Do you think LE would have stated that they were LE when calling? This charge specifically implies that she knew DM had murdered TB at this point. Hmmm...she must have said *something* untrue to them, or lied by omission more likely, if it's been stated that she "did not talk to police last year"?

“A person is not guilty as an accessory for refusing to provide information to authorities”

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

Either way, it sounds like they have some kind of proof that she knew about DM's alleged involvement in TB's murder. MOO. But then how does the "in the Hamilton area" factor in, or again, maybe we're reading too much into that. I only found the quote from the one National Post source...

LE has to have reasonable grounds in order to lay a charge. In this case, they have decided the best and most suitable charge has a sentence of 25 years. So yes of course they have some sort of grounds to justify the charge.

Do bail hearings of this sort usually take this long? Is it the amount of evidence the Crown has to provide, and then I assume the defense gets the chance for rebuttal (?) that could be dragging this out for longer than, IMO, would be expected? Maybe I'm off base and this is totally normal. Please correct me if so

I think "voluminous disclosure", and a three day bail hearing together suggests they don’t have CN on the hook for just one thing. I think Matou is on the right track in thinking up a list of possible actions, rather than the one thing that sealed CN’s fate. LE keeps characterizing her as a “witness”. Surely LE would not be so interested in her if she were only a hearsay witness, where DM told her something that she could reasonably choose to disbelieve. There has to be more to it than that.

What if, though, this is related to email or text conversations that they only discovered much later? LE stated that the investigation involved one of the largest computer confiscation in their history (IIRC) and leads me to be think that there might have been communications uncovered, that could be date-stamped.

The thing about electronic communications (emails, texts) is that you can ID the devices that sent and received them, but can you ID the person behind them, without a doubt? I mean a voice message or wiretap that picks up voice recordings might personally ID someone, but you can always claim a text or email was written by someone else who had possession of your device without your permission. I am not sure that texts or emails would be enough to send someone to prison for 25 years. They might be part of the picture, but certainly they are no smoking gun.

Given the "voluminous disclosure" and three day bail hearing, I think you would have to consider all of CN’s activity between May 6 and May 9. We know where DM was May 10: NOT with CN, but at the hangar, and then arrested, alone, on his drive home. So CN did not have a chance to be an accessory to him on the 10th. DM was alone on the 10th. However, right up until then, May 9, CN could act as accessory. So it may not have been that CN committed one specific act ON the 9th, but that she committed a series of acts UNTIL the 9th.

At the same time she is NOT charged with murder.

“In a previous interview, Crown Attorney Anthony Leitch said the charge against Noudga relates to an allegation that she tried to help Millard "escape" on May 9, 2013. He would not elaborate as to what was meant by escape, or from whom. Police had at one time speculated there was a third person involved in Bosma’s abduction and slaying, but Leitch said Noudga likely had no part in it.”

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...bail-decision-will-wait-1-more-week-1.2724926

So by that I guess we can rule out CN’s involvement on the 6th? Or can we? What gets me is how CN could have had such an action packed May 9th that her lawyer needed 3 months to review the events of the day (“voluminous disclosure”) and it took 3 days in court for the bail hearing? And if she were covering for DM, what was there to take care of, 3 days after the crime?

I am a bit mind-boggled right now because I had figured that CN was there on the 6th, waiting in the Yukon, witnessing the dashboard clock, witnessing TB’s truck’s tail lights…in other words, a witness but not witnessing a heck of a lot.

However, the , Crown Attorney says she “likely had no part” in the events of that day. Now if DM had TOLD her that he had killed TB, that’s merely hearsay evidence, and certainly not worth 25 years and 3 days discussion in court. So what did CN witness?

It's also interesting to me that she does not fear bail, by which I mean by seeking bail, she loses the protection afforded by custody. She seemingly does no fear anyone on the outside. OTOH, she is still backing up DM, probably for a chance at the millions.

So...? MOO.

 

[Snoofo]

On May 9 CN did something that "proves" to LE she knew he killed TB. What if she didn't believe he killed TB and thought she was assisting him on May 9 in avoiding a false arrest? Meaning she didn't think he did it but she was aware of some involvement on his part that made it look bad for him, then offered to help him? If she thought she was assisting a scapegoat but not a murderer is she still an accessory?

No real mentions of texts but knowing the youngsters in my life there MUST have been more texts than calls.

The large computer seizure talk came out not too long before the last few arrests.

Still can't get over the Three Matthews? What's next with this case for Pete's sake? Including Det. Kavanagh that's four Matts!!

 

[Miss3]

I've had this idea for a while and it might be totally implausible but here goes. The fact that TB's wife could not attend the bail hearing because she would be called as a witness made me wonder if CN might have showed up at TB's house to try to get info when they were coordinating efforts to find him.