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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

ILoveDateline said:
Thanks for this. I'm not on twitter but I checked the accounts of Adam Carter and Molly Hayes today to see if they will be at court this afternoon. Anyone know?

Also, I don't know how to move this over to the CN thread,I'd like to see it there.
Click to expand...

I posted a link on the CN thread from Molly Hayes saying she'd be in court tomorrow IF there was a trial.
 
MorningStar22 said:
How long was Noudga in jail for? I don't recall it being very long - months... what is the minimum sentencing for AATF versus the plea bargain?
Click to expand...

CN spent four months in jail before being released on $100,000 bail.

Section 463 of the Criminal Code of Canada lists the sentences available to the court when a person found guilty of being an accessory after the fact. The available sentences vary in severity according to the crime committed by the principle whom the accessory was found guilty of assisting. For example, if the principle offender was accused of committing a crime that carried a possible life sentence, the accessory may be given a sentence of up to fourteen years. At the other extreme, if the principle committed a summary offence the accessory may only receive a sentence appropriate for a summary offence. There is no minimum sentence for the offence of accessory after the fact and judges retain discretion as to exact duration of every offender’s sentence. There are a number of mitigating factors which the accused’s criminal defence lawyer can raise during sentencing to procure a shorter sentence, such as the defendant’s lack of criminal record, his or her age, his or her relationship with the principle and the degree of assistance he or she provided.

463 Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of persons who attempt to commit or are accessories after the fact to the commission of offences:

(a) every one who attempts to commit or is an accessory after the fact to the commission of an indictable offence for which, on conviction, an accused is liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for life is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years;


(b) every one who attempts to commit or is an accessory after the fact to the commission of an indictable offence for which, on conviction, an accused is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years or less is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term that is one-half of the longest term to which a person who is guilty of that offence is liable;


(c) every one who attempts to commit or is an accessory after the fact to the commission of an offence punishable on summary conviction is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction; and


(d) every one who attempts to commit or is an accessory after the fact to the commission of an offence for which the offender may be prosecuted by indictment or for which he is punishable on summary conviction

(i) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding a term that is one-half of the longest term to which a person who is guilty of that offence is liable, or


(ii) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
 
deugirtni said:
And sure, the Crown is never 100% sure of a conviction, however we probably didn't hear all of the evidence against her since it wasn't her trial yet, and considering the 2 murder-accuseds have now been convicted, which 'proves' that a murder did indeed take place. That's at least the main hurdle out of the way. It sure would have been a lot more difficult to prove AATFtM if the murderers had been found not guilty.
Click to expand...

Meant to reply earlier but forgot. If in fact DM had by some miracle been found "Not Guilty" of the murder, then AATF charges against CN would have been dropped. She could not be an accessory to a crime that (under this scenario) did not exist.

The difficulty is with proving beyond a reasonable doubt that when CN assisted with the moving of the Eliminator and the storing of the DVR and transport of Tim's truck, she knew DM had committed a homicide and intended to help him avoid detection. Without some very persuasive text evidence (since AFAIK her phone wasn't tapped), there could only be very circumstantial evidence of what she "knew."

I'm positive that she knew a whole lot more than she is letting on, but her "I didn't know anything, and anyhow I can't remember" story is very hard to DISprove without something solid. If she sticks to that - and she will - whatever statement she has read into the record in court will be variations on the same. She will never admit anything.

Dungey had her number. She and DM "deserve each other," as he succinctly pointed out.
 
palisadesk said:
Meant to reply earlier but forgot. If in fact DM had by some miracle been found "Not Guilty" of the murder, then AATF charges against CN would have been dropped. She could not be an accessory to a crime that (under this scenario) did not exist.

The difficulty is with proving beyond a reasonable doubt that when CN assisted with the moving of the Eliminator and the storing of the DVR and transport of Tim's truck, she knew DM had committed a homicide and intended to help him avoid detection. Without some very persuasive text evidence (since AFAIK her phone wasn't tapped), there could only be very circumstantial evidence of what she "knew."

I'm positive that she knew a whole lot more than she is letting on, but her "I didn't know anything, and anyhow I can't remember" story is very hard to DISprove without something solid. If she sticks to that - and she will - whatever statement she has read into the record in court will be variations on the same. She will never admit anything.

Dungey had her number. She and DM "deserve each other," as he succinctly pointed out.
Click to expand...




It is with complete and total respect for the Bosma family that I say this.I get that they want to move ahead..but I truly hope a judge can see the $ signs of the expensive lawyer and put aside the the emotion and looks at this girls for what she is and force her to stand trial. She needs to atone for her actions. The thought of this little wench walking away only to continue to make BJ joke innuendos at Blue Jay games on her social media makes my skin crawl. JMO
 
hopingforjustice said:
[/B]



It is with complete and total respect for the Bosma family that I say this.I get that they want to move ahead..but I truly hope a judge can see the $ signs of the expensive lawyer and put aside the the emotion and looks at this girls for what she is and force her to stand trial. She needs to atone for her actions. The thought of this little wench walking away only to continue to make BJ joke innuendos at Blue Jay games on her social media makes my skin crawl. JMO
Click to expand...
I thought the judges comment to CN was demeaning in that it suggested she was just a silly woman with bad friends. If she really had nothing to do with the crime she would have reported DM, testified against him. Even Karla did as much. CN already knew she was being played so it wasn't love that stopped her from doing so. My take on this is that she had to impress DM with her courtroom stunts to keep him from blabbing about another case. What could trump the queen of kinks for DMs attention? A pregnant rival maybe? jMO
 
deugirtni said:
I don't think this was posted previously. An article in Toronto Star by ABro - apparently an excerpt from her book:

https://www.thestar.com/news/insigh...eli-army-vet-who-escaped-tim-bosmas-fate.html
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting that. It was an entertaining read. I wasn't interested in the abro's book but the talk on here, and this excerpt, have changed my mind. It was well written. The mysteriousness and "character" of IT makes it seem as though he is a fictional character.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk
 
Laura Babcock trial September 2017
Wayne Millard trial March 2018

:angry:
 
matou said:
Laura Babcock trial September 2017
Wayne Millard trial March 2018

:angry:
Click to expand...

Based upon what we have just seen, I'm not expecting much from either of these projected trials, if they even come to pass.

While the result of the CN debacle is certainly better than the (very real, as it turns out) possibility of her walking out free and clear with an acquittal, it was certainly implied by some close to the case and by the fact of direct indictments and publication bans, that the Crown had a very strong case against CN.

That proved not to be true, and the Crown said so in so many words, as did the judge (who however did not hear what other evidence the Crown might have had). The Crown did say they had no direct evidence to prove what CN knew. This is *the* critical factor in the case against her, and lacking that, the odds of a conviction while greater than zero, were not good.

With the LB and WM cases, investigations only started long after the fact, material evidence, if any, is limited; proper forensics could not be done in the absence of remains, weapons and so on, and actual evidence may be far less conclusive than what was purportedly amassed against CN.

The Crown must have something, or the judges involved would not have sent the matters to trial. But they don't need a whole lot of evidence for this; a poster earlier cited the fact that the standard for issuing a preferred indictment was no higher than the standard for proceeding with any other prosecution. The bar is low.

Given all that, I'm not sanguine either that trials will take place, or that any further guilty verdicts will result from them. I can only speculate on what the Crown's logic is in proceeding, but by keeping the cases ongoing they can still hope for new or damaging information to reveal itself or witnesses to come forward now that DM and MS are incarcerated.

Not sure there will be a reason to reconvene in September, though. On verra.
 
palisadesk said:
While the result of the CN debacle is certainly better than the (very real, as it turns out) possibility of her walking out free and clear with an acquittal, it was certainly implied by some close to the case and by the fact of direct indictments and publication bans, that the Crown had a very strong case against CN.
Click to expand...

CN waived her right to a preliminary hearing; her case was not a direct indictment.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5343821-noudga-heading-straight-to-trial-in-bosma-case/
 
In case you didn't see it, ABro was interviewed on Global TV's Morning Show a couple of days ago talking about Dark Ambition. Unfortunately, I am unable to find a direct link to the video.

But if you go to FB and do a search for the group called Dellen Millard Discuss The Case, and then scroll down the page past about 5 items, you can click on the video and watch it from there.

It was lovely to be able to see Ann and listen to her interview.

(Perhaps there is someone more knowledgable than I am who can figure out how to get the link for this video and post it here. Thank you!)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Latest from ABro, Ann Brocklehurst ...

"Goodbye and good riddance to Christina Noudga. When Dellen Millard’s unpopular ex-girlfriend left a Hamilton courtroom Tuesday, after accepting a plea deal and pleading guilty to obstruction of justice, there was, more than anything, an overwhelming sense of relief."


http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/201...n-a-plea-deal-will-work-for-human-rights.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
MrsThreadgoode said:
In case you didn't see it, ABro was interviewed on Global TV's Morning Show a couple of days ago talking about Dark Ambition. Unfortunately, I am unable to find a direct link to the video.

But if you go to FB and do a search for the group called Dellen Millard Discuss The Case, and then scroll down the page past about 5 items, you can click on the video and watch it from there.

It was lovely to be able to see Ann and listen to her interview.

(Perhaps there is someone more knowledgable than I am who can figure out how to get the link for this video and post it here. Thank you!)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

UPDATE: Many thanks to Matou and SomeITGuy for providing a direct link to ABro's interview on Global TV!

https://www.facebook.com/DellenMillardDiscussTheCase/videos/667626193397624/



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
The fifth estate is doing a show on Tim. Dec 2nd on CBC. Not sure if this was posted here yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 175 more.
Total: 2,219 (members: 176, guests: 2,043)

Online statistics

Members online
176
Guests online
2,043
Total visitors
2,219
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,626
Messages
18,127,327
Members
231,109
Latest member
drella444
Back
Top