Verdict: GUILTY for both Millard and Smich of 1st degree murder #3

[ILoveDateline]

I've recently finished watching The Fall on Netflix, a fictional story of serial murderer in Ireland. I thought of both CN and MM towards the end of the series when police describe the wife as "incurious and unquestioning but innocent" (MM) but there was also a gf that was naive and manipulated and eventually helped hide evidence. She was ignorant and lied and was stupid enough to believe "we are in love. You will never understand" (CN).

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

 

[Georgeo]

I am so looking forward to having all of these trials completed and justice served for LB's family, and CN to be in prison for a long stretch to pay for her involvement in the TB murder.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Here are a couple of accessory after the fact to murder cases:

Helped dismember a body, got 4 years:
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/do...Str=R v Nolan 2001 BCCA 354&autocompletePos=1

Hid the murder weapon, a gun; got 5 years:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nssc/do...teStr=R v Dow, 2003 NSSC 82&autocompletePos=1

 

[jash]

I've recently finished watching The Fall on Netflix, a fictional story of serial murderer in Ireland. I thought of both CN and MM towards the end of the series when police describe the wife as "incurious and unquestioning but innocent" (MM) but there was also a gf that was naive and manipulated and eventually helped hide evidence. She was ignorant and lied and was stupid enough to believe "we are in love. You will never understand" (CN).

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

I love The Fall (though season three hasn't been as riveting)! Good call on the parallels.

 

[palisadesk]

By acting ignorant and suffering severe memory loss on the stand while testifying in the B trial, wouldn't she have been protecting herself from a claim of perjury later? If she chooses to remain silent and not to testify in her own defence at her own trial, she won't be able to perjure herself, will she? Nobody could really prove what CN did or did not remember.

I think that whether she would be protected by her "I don't remember" story from charges of perjury will depend on the evidence. If there are texts or writings (such as draft letters to DM) where she says that if asked she will pretend not to remember (etc.), then that would be evidence she planned to commit perjury and the memory story was a lie. Of course we don't know what the evidence is, and there may be nothing like that, but what if there's evidence she did know what was in the trailer, and she testified in court that she did NOT know? It's possible that the evidence may show she fabricated some of her testimony in the B. trial.

We really won't know what the evidence is until it's presented in court. I hope it's damning.

But, sadly, she's unlikely to serve much, if any, prison time. She will get any possible sentence reduced because of her jail time served and her semi-house-arrest status after her release on bail, together with the fact that she cannot reasonably be deemed a threat to the community.

If the evidence against her is pretty solid, I would expect to see Greenspan try to negotiate a plea resolution agreement of some kind. We will see.

 

[marymcd]

Here are a couple of accessory after the fact to murder cases:

Helped dismember a body, got 4 years:
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/do...Str=R v Nolan 2001 BCCA 354&autocompletePos=1

Hid the murder weapon, a gun; got 5 years:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nssc/do...teStr=R v Dow, 2003 NSSC 82&autocompletePos=1

In both cases they pleaded guilty. The 5 year sentence was a joint recommendation by crown and defense, although he had a staggering 29 prior convictions and had been released from prison on probation the same day that he was arrested for this offense. But 4 years for dismembering a body, your closest friend. Wow, that is really revolting regardless of the fact that it was his first offence, sort of. He was also young, 21 at the time, but off to a good start it would seem.

I sure hope CN isn't so lucky.

 

[ILoveDateline]

I think that whether she would be protected by her "I don't remember" story from charges of perjury will depend on the evidence. If there are texts or writings (such as draft letters to DM) where she says that if asked she will pretend not to remember (etc.), then that would be evidence she planned to commit perjury and the memory story was a lie. Of course we don't know what the evidence is, and there may be nothing like that, but what if there's evidence she did know what was in the trailer, and she testified in court that she did NOT know? It's possible that the evidence may show she fabricated some of her testimony in the B. trial.

We really won't know what the evidence is until it's presented in court. I hope it's damning.

But, sadly, she's unlikely to serve much, if any, prison time. She will get any possible sentence reduced because of her jail time served and her semi-house-arrest status after her release on bail, together with the fact that she cannot reasonably be deemed a threat to the community.

If the evidence against her is pretty solid, I would expect to see Greenspan try to negotiate a plea resolution agreement of some kind. We will see.

Would the crown not bring forth the evidence at the Bosma trial if they had proof she was lying then? Such as they did with reminding her of what she had said in her police statements and the text msg of the gun photo. She claimed to not know or remember but if they had the evidence in msgs and notes that she knew what either or both were doing, I would think it would have been brought up at the Bosma trial.

Then again, it was important to get the account of what DM and MS had done, it being their trial, and not incriminate her.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

 

[SnooperDuper]

In both cases they pleaded guilty. The 5 year sentence was a joint recommendation by crown and defense, although he had a staggering 29 prior convictions and had been released from prison on probation the same day that he was arrested for this offense. But 4 years for dismembering a body, your closest friend. Wow, that is really revolting regardless of the fact that it was his first offence, sort of. He was also young, 21 at the time, but off to a good start it would seem.

I sure hope CN isn't so lucky.

I think CN's letters, ongoing commitment to help DM and her unhelpful manner may get her a few more years than that, but I guess we'll have to see.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Less than a week until the book (Kindle or dead trees?)

Less than 3 weeks to CN's trial.

 

[Tealgrove]

Less than a week until the book (Kindle or dead trees?)

Less than 3 weeks to CN's trial.

Will CN's trial be held in Hamilton as well?

 

[SnooperDuper]

Will CN's trial be held in Hamilton as well?

Yes it will.

 

[Alethea Dice]

i hadn't realized that DM had filed for bankruptcy (Nov 2015) AFTER the B lawsuit was filed (May 2015)? Nice.

Just jumping off your post.

I read those documents as a receivership, not a personal bankruptcy filed by DM. A receivership and a bankruptcy are not mutually exclusive. A receivership is generally requested by a creditor or the Court to protect the assets in order to ensure payment of the outstanding debt. The document does indicate that Zaifman's was appointed by the Court and that their purpose is to "ensure that assets are preserved and protected pending resolution of legal proceedings". Since the B's are the biggest creditors on the list, it is entirely possible that it was they themselves who applied to the Court to have the receivership put in place. If that's the case, it would only make sense that it happened after they filed their lawsuit, and it took 6 months to get through the courts.

Does anyone have a link showing that DM has actually filed for bankruptcy, either for himself personally or for the companies? TIA

http://www.zeifmans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Notice-and-Statement-of-Receiver-Nov-23-2015-2.pdf

 

[Sherlock Bones]

I wonder what the outcome would have been if the non-shooter (if there was one) went to police as soon as possible (which might not have been until the next day because of the gun) and laid out the facts instead of covering it up.

What if the gun accidentally went off while DM or MS was telling TB and then showing them a weapon they brought after a creepy encounter with that big european guy in Toronto. I doubt this happened but it is possible.

We'll never know who the real shooter was but the jury was left with no other choice then to convict these two based on the evidence presented. What a waste of life.

 

[Sherlock Bones]

TB's house just went up for sale in Ancaster. I live in his neighbourhood. Thinking about making an offer. My wife was wondering if the seller has to disclose what happened to the previous tenant. Anyone know?

 

[jash]

In Ontario, there is no legal obligation to disclose a death in a home. But regardless Tim Bosma was not killed in (or even on) the property.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Just jumping off your post.

I read those documents as a receivership, not a personal bankruptcy filed by DM. A receivership and a bankruptcy are not mutually exclusive. A receivership is generally requested by a creditor or the Court to protect the assets in order to ensure payment of the outstanding debt. The document does indicate that Zaifman's was appointed by the Court and that their purpose is to "ensure that assets are preserved and protected pending resolution of legal proceedings". Since the B's are the biggest creditors on the list, it is entirely possible that it was they themselves who applied to the Court to have the receivership put in place. If that's the case, it would only make sense that it happened after they filed their lawsuit, and it took 6 months to get through the courts.

Does anyone have a link showing that DM has actually filed for bankruptcy, either for himself personally or for the companies? TIA

http://www.zeifmans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Notice-and-Statement-of-Receiver-Nov-23-2015-2.pdf

When you declare personal bankruptcy, a trustee takes receivership of your assets for a year while they sort out where your money is go. After debts are settled, control of your assets are returned to you.

 

[Tealgrove]

TB's house just went up for sale in Ancaster. I live in his neighbourhood. Thinking about making an offer. My wife was wondering if the seller has to disclose what happened to the previous tenant. Anyone know?

That's such a shame but I understand. It's time for Sharlene and family move on and unfortunately that house, and being so close to where Tim was supposedly killed, is a daily reminder of what could, and should have been, and the tragedy and horror of what happened.

I drove past the house last week and noticed that the privacy screens had been removed from the gate. It caught my eye. Now I know why. I wish them nothing but good things. I hope the sale of the house allows Sharlene to begin a new life as sad as that is.

 

[Alethea Dice]

When you declare personal bankruptcy, a trustee takes receivership of your assets for a year while they sort out where your money is go. After debts are settled, control of your assets are returned to you.

Yes, I know what personal bankruptcy is. And the person filing contacts the Trustee, the Courts don't assign one. In a personal bankruptcy, the Trustee protects you from your creditor, not the other way around as is stated in the Zaifman document. The Trustee will take your non-exempt assets and use those to pay off what they can to your creditors. If it's your first one, you pay the Trustee a determined amount for 9 months and then you're released from any remaining unpaid debts and free to start over. If you can pay off all your debts and will still have surplus assets, no Trustee would recommend that you claim bankruptcy. They would work out other debt relief options to help you get your debts paid. There would be no point in claiming bankruptcy if you could still pay off those debts with your assets and a repayment plan. The whole purpose is to get rid of out of control debt that you cannot repay. No one would want that mark on their credit rating if they had still managed to pay off all creditors and have assets left over, nor would any professional recommend it. If, as you say, the Trustee took receivership of your assets, paid your debts and returned the leftovers back to you, there would be no bankruptcy to claim as there would be no debt left.

 

[Velma]

TB's house just went up for sale in Ancaster. I live in his neighbourhood. Thinking about making an offer. My wife was wondering if the seller has to disclose what happened to the previous tenant. Anyone know?

I was just checking out what I think is the online real estate listing. 1230 Trinity? If so, what a beautiful place if you're making an offer!

 

[deugirtni]

TB's house just went up for sale in Ancaster. I live in his neighbourhood. Thinking about making an offer. My wife was wondering if the seller has to disclose what happened to the previous tenant. Anyone know?

There is an indepth article about the subject here: https://orea.com/Members/EDGE-Newsletters/2016/October/Disclosure-and-stigmatized-properties