Mark Smich: Innocent Dupe? Alternative Theories

[redheart]

Logic would dictate that if LE had also found LB's phone at one of their residences (which has not been suggested anywhere in the media as far as I can tell, so if I missed that please link to it), the same defence could apply.

People who are desperate for money or drugs often sell their belongings (or their bodies). It would be nearly impossible to determine all this time later if she had sold those supposed belongings to her friends or if she had loaned them or if she had forgotten them, or if she had had them stolen from her, regardless of what the objects are, in my opinion.

No, logic would not dictate that. All the evidence and even the possible evidence against DM is being explained away in the most farcical way possible. Logic has nothing to do with it.

 

[swedie]

UBM French school drop out it should read. DM an adrenaline junkie? :thinking: Adrenaline junkie who lacks ambition. JMO.

With Millard in custody, Bosma's family said Saturday that they hope the mystery will finally be solved.

"I was a pilot. I know what that's like. This guy is addicted to adrenaline," Bosma's brother-in-law Chris said Saturday night, as family gathered once again at the family's Trinity Road home.

In addition to flying, the Toronto French School graduate took up off-road racing in his 20s — road tripping to Mexico with friends in 2011 for the famous Baja 500 desert race.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2873832-bosma-suspect-profile-dellen-millard/

 

[Juballee]

Did the brother-in-law of the victim know the suspect well enough to know that he may have been addicted to adrenaline or is he just guessing from his own experience as a pilot, that all pilots must be adrenaline junkies, I wonder?

 

[Juballee]

No, logic would not dictate that. All the evidence and even the possible evidence against DM is being explained away in the most farcical way possible. Logic has nothing to do with it.

I think perhaps you misunderstood me. I was saying that it is logical that if one object can be explained as being in someone's possession because they were friends with the victim and bought it off of them when they were desperate for money, the same explanation would logically work for another object of similar value. People who are desperate for a place to stay or drugs or money quite often end up selling their belongings, even useful or beloved objects, that's why pawn shops stay in business, there is nothing farcical about that notion. Farcical would be if a stranger had the victim's items and claimed to have bought them from her even though they had never previously met, in my opinion.

 

[SnooperDuper]

I think perhaps you misunderstood me. I was saying that it is logical that if one object can be explained as being in someone's possession because they were friends with the victim and bought it off of them when they were desperate for money, the same explanation would logically work for another object of similar value. People who are desperate for a place to stay or drugs or money quite often end up selling their belongings, even useful or beloved objects, that's why pawn shops stay in business, there is nothing farcical about that notion. Farcical would be if a stranger had the victim's items and claimed to have bought them from her even though they had never previously met, in my opinion.

Why would someone who owns the latest iphone buy someone down on their luck's used, out of date phone?

Is DM running a pawn shop now, or he doesn't do favours without a deposit, or wow, what kind of guy turns the screws on a friend and punishes them by taking their most useful possession just for some drugs and a place to stay? Heartless.

 

[Juballee]

In my opinion, someone who buys used trucks might buy other used items to save a few dollars. He might not even be buying them for himself, he could have bought them for others, or just because he felt like it was helping out a friend who was desperate enough to offer their things for sale, without completely taking their dignity by giving them donations out of pity. Perhaps instead of running a pawn shop he should have been running a charity, taking in all his friends to fill his house and eat his food and use his utilities, how heartless of him not to do that, I suppose.

 

[SnooperDuper]

In my opinion, someone who buys used trucks might buy other used items to save a few dollars. He might not even be buying them for himself, he could have bought them for others, or just because he felt like it was helping out a friend who was desperate enough to offer their things for sale, without completely taking their dignity by giving them donations out of pity. Perhaps instead of running a pawn shop he should have been running a charity, taking in all his friends to fill his house and eat his food and use his utilities, how heartless of him not to do that, I suppose.

So LB is down on her luck and DM comes into possession of her phone because it's the last thing of value she has to give him for drugs and a place to stay...and still he kicks her out. Yeah, that's an alternate theory that sheds a great light on the guy.

I don't think DM would be in possession of LB's phone for any valid reason.

 

[Kamille]

I think perhaps you misunderstood me. I was saying that it is logical that if one object can be explained as being in someone's possession because they were friends with the victim and bought it off of them when they were desperate for money, the same explanation would logically work for another object of similar value. People who are desperate for a place to stay or drugs or money quite often end up selling their belongings, even useful or beloved objects, that's why pawn shops stay in business, there is nothing farcical about that notion. Farcical would be if a stranger had the victim's items and claimed to have bought them from her even though they had never previously met, in my opinion.

Except DM said he never saw her. He also said he never spoke to her until he was confronted with the phone evidence. And I've seen nothing to indicate that MS even knew her. :waitasec:

MOO

 

[Kamille]

In my opinion, someone who buys used trucks might buy other used items to save a few dollars. He might not even be buying them for himself, he could have bought them for others, or just because he felt like it was helping out a friend who was desperate enough to offer their things for sale, without completely taking their dignity by giving them donations out of pity. Perhaps instead of running a pawn shop he should have been running a charity, taking in all his friends to fill his house and eat his food and use his utilities, how heartless of him not to do that, I suppose.

Who buys used trucks? So far I haven't heard of one person connected to this crime who buys or bought a used truck. Just one poor guy trying to sell one.

And I'll hold off on nominating DM for "Good Samaritan of the year" until all the evidence is in.

MOO

 

[Sillybilly]

So LB is down on her luck and DM comes into possession of her phone because it's the last thing of value she has to give him for drugs and a place to stay...and still he kicks her out. Yeah, that's an alternate theory that sheds a great light on the guy.

I don't think DM would be in possession of LB's phone for any valid reason.

Phone records show that LB still had her phone and was using it as at July 3 (iirc). If DM claims he didn't physically see her, there would be no explanation for her phone being in his possession (if in fact it was).

 

[swedie]

Why would someone who owns the latest iphone buy someone down on their luck's used, out of date phone?

Is DM running a pawn shop now, or he doesn't do favours without a deposit, or wow, what kind of guy turns the screws on a friend and punishes them by taking their most useful possession just for some drugs and a place to stay? Heartless.

Imagine that Snooper, the guy who treated his friends to jet skis, trips, picked up tabs for fine dining, turned around and gave his down and out buddy the cell phone of a missing woman; the one we now know DM is accused of murdering. That down and out buddy who couldn't afford to buy his own cell phone, but then he's expected to pay the monthly bills? :laughing: Or was DM going pick up that tab also? Maybe DM wasn't that frugal after all? MOO.

You may be onto something. We know reporters do make errors in their reportings. Could it be DM was running a pawn shop out of the hangar? One was a shop, this one a chop shop and/or pawn shop? :thinking: :laugh:
MOO.

 

[swedie]

In my opinion, someone who buys used trucks might buy other used items to save a few dollars. He might not even be buying them for himself, he could have bought them for others, or just because he felt like it was helping out a friend who was desperate enough to offer their things for sale, without completely taking their dignity by giving them donations out of pity. Perhaps instead of running a pawn shop he should have been running a charity, taking in all his friends to fill his house and eat his food and use his utilities, how heartless of him not to do that, I suppose.

Was DM charging his basement dwellers rent? I wouldn't be surprised.

BBM - Instead DM completely took innocent peoples' dignity and everything else they had away by murdering them. Where was his pity then? How heartless and pathetic. Sincerely I don't believe he had pity for anyone but himself, but that's JMHO.

 

[Juballee]

So LB is down on her luck and DM comes into possession of her phone because it's the last thing of value she has to give him for drugs and a place to stay...and still he kicks her out. Yeah, that's an alternate theory that sheds a great light on the guy.

I don't think DM would be in possession of LB's phone for any valid reason.

I think this is twisting my words, that is not what I explained, nor is that how pawning your items work. People don't pawn items so that they can live at the pawn shop until the money runs out, and then the pawn shop owner is a jerk for kicking them out.

My point is that a good defence lawyer can come up with many reasons why DM or MS could be in possession of LB's phone. For example, say LB called saying she was leaving town to get away from an ex she was having trouble with (wasn't there another ex charged with something?), and she was looking to sell all her stuff to get extra money and lighten her load. Her phone would be one of the things that she would sell, it was worth something and when you are leaving to start a new life somewhere, you don't want an old phone tied to you to possibly track you down. That scenario I just made up on the spot would also be a great explanation for why DM said what he did to SL, he could have mistakenly thought he was the ex she was leaving town to avoid. Oh, and since this is the Ms dupe thread, let's throw him a bone and say that he had lost his phone, that was why he bought LB's. New phones are expensive, used phones are less than half the price, usually.

This is all just my response to the claim that there could be no valid reason to have her phone, I'm not endorsing this scenario nor do I feel like defending it. It'd say it's my opinion only, but it's not even my opinion, just what a defence lawyer could say to give a valid reason for having her phone. No slight is intended to anyone, especially SL who did his best to find Laura.

 

[Juballee]

Who buys used trucks? So far I haven't heard of one person connected to this crime who buys or bought a used truck. Just one poor guy trying to sell one.

And I'll hold off on nominating DM for "Good Samaritan of the year" until all the evidence is in.

MOO

I buy used trucks. So do half of my friends and family. It is a commonly held belief that new vehicles lose half of their value the minute they are driven off the lot, so a lot of people feel that they are a waste of money. That's not just my opinion. Look at kijiji, autotrader, craigslist, any used car lot or newspaper ad section, they wouldn't be selling used cars if no one bought them. Did WM buy new cars? What was the hanger full of, brand new new vehicles or old ones?

In my opinion, this has to be one of the more ridiculous arguments in this whole case. DM was shopping for a used truck, that's how this whole thing started, so obviously he was looking for a used truck. Not a new truck, we have not heard one single car salesman come forward and say that he was also test driving new trucks. So for all the time spent researching how much a new dodge ram costs we might as well have researched the cost of a snowmobile for all the connection either has to this case, in my opinion.

What year is the Yukon that DM called his daily driver? I don't recall it looking very new. Perhaps he bought it 5 or 10 years ago new and has driven it into the ground that quickly? To me, all that would suggest is that he is frugal, not one of those rich 'spoilt' brats who get a shiny new car every year. And frugal people generally have little use for brand new vehicle prices in my opinion.

And on that track, if he was so frugal that he wanted to steal one instead of pay for it, why not steal a new one instead of a used one? That would be far more frugal, whether he was stealing it to chop it or resell or use it himself; new vehicles have a higher resale value, and last longer without repairs so they are more frugal to steal than used vehicles, but less frugal to buy than used vehicles. That's not just my opinion, that's basic economics. And if stealing a vehicle on a test drive were the plan, they could have just as easily done it at a dealership with a couple of pieces of fake ID and a whole lot less trouble, because I bet a truck salesman would be less emotionally attached to a vehicle and far happier to get out without a fight, in my opinion.

 

[SnooperDuper]

I think this is twisting my words, that is not what I explained, nor is that how pawning your items work. People don't pawn items so that they can live at the pawn shop until the money runs out, and then the pawn shop owner is a jerk for kicking them out.

My point is that a good defence lawyer can come up with many reasons why DM or MS could be in possession of LB's phone. For example, say LB called saying she was leaving town to get away from an ex she was having trouble with (wasn't there another ex charged with something?), and she was looking to sell all her stuff to get extra money and lighten her load. Her phone would be one of the things that she would sell, it was worth something and when you are leaving to start a new life somewhere, you don't want an old phone tied to you to possibly track you down. That scenario I just made up on the spot would also be a great explanation for why DM said what he did to SL, he could have mistakenly thought he was the ex she was leaving town to avoid. Oh, and since this is the Ms dupe thread, let's throw him a bone and say that he had lost his phone, that was why he bought LB's. New phones are expensive, used phones are less than half the price, usually.

This is all just my response to the claim that there could be no valid reason to have her phone, I'm not endorsing this scenario nor do I feel like defending it. It'd say it's my opinion only, but it's not even my opinion, just what a defence lawyer could say to give a valid reason for having her phone. No slight is intended to anyone, especially SL who did his best to find Laura.

But LB was still being billed for her phone, it was still active and in her name.

That implies she meant to keep it.

Incidentally, the latest model phones are often free or cheap with a 3-year plan.

 

[SnooperDuper]

I buy used trucks. So do half of my friends and family. It is a commonly held belief that new vehicles lose half of their value the minute they are driven off the lot, so a lot of people feel that they are a waste of money. That's not just my opinion. Look at kijiji, autotrader, craigslist, any used car lot or newspaper ad section, they wouldn't be selling used cars if no one bought them. Did WM buy new cars? What was the hanger full of, brand new new vehicles or old ones?

In my opinion, this has to be one of the more ridiculous arguments in this whole case. DM was shopping for a used truck, that's how this whole thing started, so obviously he was looking for a used truck. Not a new truck, we have not heard one single car salesman come forward and say that he was also test driving new trucks. So for all the time spent researching how much a new dodge ram costs we might as well have researched the cost of a snowmobile for all the connection either has to this case, in my opinion.

What year is the Yukon that DM called his daily driver? I don't recall it looking very new. Perhaps he bought it 5 or 10 years ago new and has driven it into the ground that quickly? To me, all that would suggest is that he is frugal, not one of those rich 'spoilt' brats who get a shiny new car every year. And frugal people generally have little use for brand new vehicle prices in my opinion.

And on that track, if he was so frugal that he wanted to steal one instead of pay for it, why not steal a new one instead of a used one? That would be far more frugal, whether he was stealing it to chop it or resell or use it himself; new vehicles have a higher resale value, and last longer without repairs so they are more frugal to steal than used vehicles, but less frugal to buy than used vehicles. That's not just my opinion, that's basic economics. And if stealing a vehicle on a test drive were the plan, they could have just as easily done it at a dealership with a couple of pieces of fake ID and a whole lot less trouble, because I bet a truck salesman would be less emotionally attached to a vehicle and far happier to get out without a fight, in my opinion.

An of course a dealership would have NO security cameras ha ha ha right? And the dealership would wait an hour before calling LE like SB?

 

[Juballee]

Was DM charging his basement dwellers rent? I wouldn't be surprised.

BBM - Instead DM completely took innocent peoples' dignity and everything else they had away by murdering them. Where was his pity then? How heartless and pathetic. Sincerely I don't believe he had pity for anyone but himself, but that's JMHO.

In my opinion it is unfair to take a few words from a scenario I imagined, pull them out of their specifically imagined context, and then apply them to them to a whole different, far broader aspect and twist them to strengthen the opinion that it is cruel and heartless to murder as if I stated the opposite. I think that we can all agree that murder is wrong without my words being twisted to make it appear as if I disagreed with that fact at first and that I needed to be corrected on that basic point. Just my humble opinion only.

 

[SnooperDuper]

<rsbm> This:

helping out a friend who was desperate enough to offer their things for sale, without completely taking their dignity by giving them donations out of pity.

Really, it is better to take the clothes off a friend's back and leave them naked and "dignified" nude than to simply help them out?

When his friends cross the line into sheer desperation, DM still kept things tit for tat? What a monster.

 

[Juballee]

But LB was still being billed for her phone, it was still active and in her name.

That implies she meant to keep it.

Incidentally, the latest model phones are often free or cheap with a 3-year plan.

Do we know if she was still paying the bills, using the phone, or even if the phone still had the same SIM card in it while they continued to bill her? Other than the fact that they continued to bill her, what proof do we have that the phone was still 'active'? If I was going to disappear because I didn't want to be found, I am not sure if I'd bother to cancel all my bills, that would make it look like I planned to take off, not like I just vanished.

Banks have security camera and they get robbed all the time, cameras aren't that hard to deceive, usually a hat is all it takes. And any dealership near a highway in the city would offer would be thieves any number of hiding spots that could be reached in 10-20 minutes or less.

 

[Juballee]

<rsbm> This:



Really, it is better to take the clothes off a friend's back and leave them naked and "dignified" nude than to simply help them out?

When his friends cross the line into sheer desperation, DM still kept things tit for tat? What a monster.

This is a quote taken from an imagined scenario, again, I'm not sure why people keep using it to make character judgements on people who have no idea that those words have even been attributed to them in a fictional scenario. I personally need facts or stronger evidence before I label people I haven't met.