Mark Smich: Innocent Dupe? Alternative Theories

[SnooperDuper]

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.

If I were going to disappear and not be found, I would not leave my phone with someone who could tell the story of how they came to have my phone. Why not just leave the phone in the shoebox?

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.

The problem is if they hijacked a dealership truck LE would be on them in 1-2 minutes.

 

[Juballee]

The shoebox is a good point, but if you can make money on something just as easily, why not? Then she would have had more money to leave her parents to take of her dog with. Not that this is the right thread for this discussion. Is a phone still traceable after you've removed the SIM card from it, I don't know?

And I'm not sure where you live, but I cannot see the cops being on a stolen car from a dealership in 1-2 minutes in Toronto. Have you ever called the cops in an emergency, you're lucky if they are on the scene within 15 minutes. And that's just showing up to the scene of the crime, then they have to interview the witnesses and take statements and then they will start to look for the vehicle which could have easily pulled into the nearest mall, changed licence plates, or slipped into a waiting trailer and be gone before the poor salesman ever walks to a phone. I assume salesmen get at least 20 minutes before their offices start wondering where they are, because some sales take longer than others. I can't imagine a test drive where after 1-2 minutes without hearing from the salesman the cops are called and actively hunting down the vehicle, in my opinion.

 

[Kamille]

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.

I should have been more clear. Which accused person in this crime bought a used truck? You indicated that a person who buys used trucks may buy other used items. I asked who, in this crime, buys used trucks? We have no evidence that either of them have ever purchased a used truck. And they sure didn't when they called up TB for a test drive either. But DM did acquire possession of that used truck.

Do you have a link that states that DM was shopping for a used truck? It appears he was trying to get his hands on one but there is no proof that he was ever willing to pay for it. There were no negotiations with the first guy and the second one ended up dead.

Stealing a new truck from a dealership is likely more risk at getting caught than DM was willing to take. Perhaps in hindsight, he should have gone that route. :dunno:

MOO

 

[Alethea Dice]

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.

In Canada, plans are now 2 years only since the bill was passed disallowing termination fees after 2 years. Secondly, non of the latest model phones are free or cheap on a plan. If you actually want one of the latest model phones, you are paying an additional $250 minimum, in many case much more, on top of your 2 year plan. Check any of the carriers websites.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

Until I see a link to any of this as facts in evidence, my opinion is that the person(s) who is responsible for LB's disappearance is also responsible for her belongings disappearing as well. Including the IPad she was loaned and her phone that she last used to call Dellen Millard, even though he tried to deny that.

Where was LB before she disappeared and how is MS involved? Was she also staying at DM's place? Is that why MS allegedly helped with that murder as well?


MOO

FWIW, what DM actually said, according to SL, was.....

“First, he denies all the calls: ‘Maybe we spoke once or twice, but definitely not eight times.’ Flat-out denies it,” Mr. Lerner recalled. “Then I showed him the phone bill and his tone totally changed: ‘Okay, yeah, we spoke. She was looking for drugs and for a place to stay,’ and he denied her on both of those requests.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/what-if-game-haunts-babcock-friend/article18832997/

 

[Alethea Dice]

The shoebox is a good point, but if you can make money on something just as easily, why not? Then she would have had more money to leave her parents to take of her dog with. Not that this is the right thread for this discussion. Is a phone still traceable after you've removed the SIM card from it, I don't know?

And I'm not sure where you live, but I cannot see the cops being on a stolen car from a dealership in 1-2 minutes in Toronto. Have you ever called the cops in an emergency, you're lucky if they are on the scene within 15 minutes. And that's just showing up to the scene of the crime, then they have to interview the witnesses and take statements and then they will start to look for the vehicle which could have easily pulled into the nearest mall, changed licence plates, or slipped into a waiting trailer and be gone before the poor salesman ever walks to a phone. I assume salesmen get at least 20 minutes before their offices start wondering where they are, because some sales take longer than others. I can't imagine a test drive where after 1-2 minutes without hearing from the salesman the cops are called and actively hunting down the vehicle, in my opinion.

I would think that a phone would no longer be traceable as soon as the battery went dead.

JMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

In Canada, plans are now 2 years only since the bill was passed disallowing termination fees after 2 years. Secondly, non of the latest model phones are free or cheap on a plan. If you actually want one of the latest model phones, you are paying an additional $250 minimum, in many case much more, on top of your 2 year plan. Check any of the carriers websites.

JMO

So why would someone get rid of their phone if such was the cost and it was their only means of staying in touch with family and friends?

If the sold phone was not paid off on the payment plan it was on, the phone would be blacklisted and useless.

I just don't see how it would benefit LB to get rid of her phone.

 

[SnooperDuper]

I would think that a phone would no longer be traceable as soon as the battery went dead.

JMO

The hardware is encoded with an IMEI (that is printed on, but not related to the battery) and the IMEI + SIM identifies the phone on the network.

If the phone was reported stolen or was otherwise blacklisted, it would be banned from networks based on the IMEI or phone hardware ID.

In other words, the phone remains identifiable and traceable - either if used on any network, or if examined physically.

 

[Alethea Dice]

And yet you've labelled LB a desperate drug addicted prostitute who'd sell items that were loaned to her for money, MS and MWJ as gangsters, all people who identify as gang members as being from poor families, all in a fictional, or hypothetical scenario of course. Just speculation and opinion. Which is exactly what others are doing in regards to DM but for some reason gets you quite agitated only when it applies to him. This is the Tim Bosma forum, not the Dellen Millard one. It's about figuring out scenarios of how he came to be murdered after innocently going on a test drive to sell his truck, not trying to figure out the innocence of one of the accused.

MOO

I don't think this is true at all. What seems to be the issue isn't so much that DM is being labelled based only on speculation, but that it seems to be the consensus that this is okay only for DM. No such labels should be applied to MS or MWJ. Instead, as this thread implies, MS is considered to be totally innocent of any wrong doing or any knowledgeable involvement in the act. Why is it so wrong when someone uses hypothetical illustrations that point to a lesser involvement for DM, but it is perfectly fine to do the exact same thing (to a more exaggerated extent) for MS?

JMO

FWIW, SL's words about the iPad.....

When she didn't return his calls after that, he assumed she just wanted to keep the iPad.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4460246-bosma-case-victims-families-intertwined-in-grief/

Is that so different than suggesting she could have sold it?

JMO

 

[Kamille]

FWIW, what DM actually said, according to SL, was.....



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/what-if-game-haunts-babcock-friend/article18832997/

First line of that quote "First he denies ALL the calls". Then he lies about the number of calls. Then he sees the bill and makes up a story.

So what was that quote proving?

MOO

 

[Kamille]

I don't think this is true at all. What seems to be the issue isn't so much that DM is being labelled based only on speculation, but that it seems to be the consensus that this is okay only for DM. No such labels should be applied to MS or MWJ. Instead, as this thread implies, MS is considered to be totally innocent of any wrong doing or any knowledgeable involvement in the act. Why is it so wrong when someone uses hypothetical illustrations that point to a lesser involvement for DM, but it is perfectly fine to do the exact same thing (to a more exaggerated extent) for MS?

JMO

FWIW, SL's words about the iPad.....



http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4460246-bosma-case-victims-families-intertwined-in-grief/

Is that so different than suggesting she could have sold it?

JMO

DM is being labelled based on the evidence that ties directly to him, is public knowledge and has garnered him two first degree murder charges along with a co accused and one on his own. The speculation in this thread is how does MS fit into the two murders he is charged with? No one is saying MS is innocent of any wrong doing. Just trying to figure out his role.

MOO

 

[Alethea Dice]

So why would someone get rid of their phone if such was the cost and it was their only means of staying in touch with family and friends?

If the sold phone was not paid off on the payment plan it was on, the phone would be blacklisted and useless.

I just don't see how it would benefit LB to get rid of her phone.

I have never heard anywhere that LB did get rid of her phone. I believe the whole conversation started because someone had asked if the location trackers may have helped LE find the iPad and suggested that, if so, it may have been found close enough to DM to implicate him. Then, from a simple statement about the difficulty (should that be found to have been the case) in proving whether it was stolen or sold, it snowballed into this. No one ever did suggest that she had actually (in real life) sold her phone or the iPad.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

The hardware is encoded with an IMEI (that is printed on, but not related to the battery) and the IMEI + SIM identifies the phone on the network.

If the phone was reported stolen or was otherwise blacklisted, it would be banned from networks based on the IMEI or phone hardware ID.

In other words, the phone remains identifiable and traceable - either if used on any network, or if examined physically.

But the phone would still need to be recharged and turned on for this to work, correct?

I have never heard anything about her phone, or the iPad having ever been found, let alone used by someone else.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

First line of that quote "First he denies ALL the calls". Then he lies about the number of calls. Then he sees the bill and makes up a story.

So what was that quote proving?

MOO

Well, you obviously cannot hear inflection in a person's word by reading it on a printed page. He denied ALL calls completely? Or he denied all EIGHT calls? However, when it is further clarified by "maybe we spoke once or twice, but definitely not eight times", that says to me that he was only denying that he had received eight calls, not that he had not received at calls at all. So, I guess if you want it to prove something, it proves that IMO your statement that he tried to deny her phone was used to call him is not exactly true. However, my post wasn't actually meant to "prove" something, but simply to point out the actual quoted statement from SL, which leaves much to interpretation. (Even though it has been frequently, and perhaps erroneously, referred to as an undisputed fact that he denied receiving any calls at all from her during that time frame.)

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

DM is being labelled based on the evidence that ties directly to him, is public knowledge and has garnered him two first degree murder charges along with a co accused and one on his own. The speculation in this thread is how does MS fit into the two murders he is charged with? No one is saying MS is innocent of any wrong doing. Just trying to figure out his role.

MOO

No, DM is being labelled based on far more than the known evidence. He has been labelled based on how much money he may or may not have, where or whether he finished his education, a hairdo he once had, psychological profiles based on next to nothing, the timing of a condo purchase, etc., etc.. If you read back to some posts prior to the whole phone conversation and in other threads, I'm sure you can find lots of posts that do indeed insinuate the MS is innocent of any wrongdoing. So I guess my question would be, why do people argue so hard against any suggestion at all that DM may not have been the leader in this unfortunate event, and yet some of those same people so willingly do exactly the same thing in defense of MS?

JMO

 

[Kamille]

I have never heard anywhere that LB did get rid of her phone. I believe the whole conversation started because someone had asked if the location trackers may have helped LE find the iPad and suggested that, if so, it may have been found close enough to DM to implicate him. Then, from a simple statement about the difficulty (should that be found to have been the case) in proving whether it was stolen or sold, it snowballed into this. No one ever did suggest that she had actually (in real life) sold her phone or the iPad.

JMO

It was suggested that if either the IPad, LB's phone or both were found in the possession of either DM or MS, there was a plausible explanation for that. Even though DM denied ever seeing LB within the days between when she was loaned the IPad and her disappearance. The discussion snowballed from there I believe.

MOO

 

[Kamille]

Well, you obviously cannot hear inflection in a person's word by reading it on a printed page. He denied ALL calls completely? Or he denied all EIGHT calls? However, when it is further clarified by "maybe we spoke once or twice, but definitely not eight times", that says to me that he was only denying that he had received eight calls, not that he had not received at calls at all. So, I guess if you want it to prove something, it proves that IMO your statement that he tried to deny her phone was used to call him is not exactly true. However, my post wasn't actually meant to "prove" something, but simply to point out the actual quoted statement from SL, which leaves much to interpretation. (Even though it has been frequently, and perhaps erroneously, referred to as an undisputed fact that he denied receiving any calls at all from her during that time frame.)

JMO

That's a creative interpretation of a written quote IMO.

I said he originally denied speaking to her. Then he admitted to speaking to her saying she was asking for drugs and a place to stay, both of which he claims he denied her. Considering the charge against him, I'd say LE don't believe him in that regard.


MOO

 

[Kamille]

No, DM is being labelled based on far more than the known evidence. He has been labelled based on how much money he may or may not have, where or whether he finished his education, a hairdo he once had, psychological profiles based on next to nothing, the timing of a condo purchase, etc., etc.. If you read back to some posts prior to the whole phone conversation and in other threads, I'm sure you can find lots of posts that do indeed insinuate the MS is innocent of any wrongdoing. So I guess my question would be, why do people argue so hard against any suggestion at all that DM may not have been the leader in this unfortunate event, and yet some of those same people so willingly do exactly the same thing in defense of MS?

JMO

What we know from MSM...

DM and MS were identified as the two suspects who approached TB's home and entered his vehicle in his driveway for a test drive. DM in the front seat driving, TB in the passenger seat and MS in the backseat.

DM's Yukon was seen on video following TB's truck out of the area of his home but was not seen on video following the truck in Brantford. No 3rd person was ever arrested.

TB's remains were found in DM's incinerator on DM's farm.

TB's truck was found in DM's trailer in DM's mother's driveway.

CN has been charged with assisting DM to escape in some way. (not MS, just DM)

MWJ has been charged with supplying a gun to DM (not MS, just DM)

DM has been charged with the murder of LB. He was her last contact. He has a co-accused whom she did not contact. But MS did stay in DM's basement and may have been there if LB made her way to DM's home that long holiday weekend.

DM acquired a burner phone and used it to make the calls for the test drives. MS did not contact anyone with regards to them selling a truck. MS sat in the backseat for both test drives.

DM hid his vehicle away from the home and place of business of the truck owners he contacted for test drives and walked up to both addresses, with MS. DM did all the talking.

DM has been charged with the first degree murder of his father. He stands alone on that charge.

He is a suspect in three first degree murders. He is being analyzed and picked apart with a fine tooth comb. That's what we do here. MS is as well but there is just not that much on him.

I've posted on a few occasions that MS is definitely not innocent in any wrong doing on the TB case IMO and I've not had one poster dispute that. I think most, if not all, concede that he knew he was getting involved in nefarious activities, but based on the evidence, just how much did he know he was getting involved in? As for the LB murder, we have nothing to go on there other than the fact that she contacted DM and both be and MS were eventually charged with her murder.

People argue because based on the above FACTS, DM's participation screams leader and there have been no common sense scenarios presented that he wasn't. The pretzel twisting of facts and just plain inventing some based on speculation and opinion just isn't convincing anyone other than a select few that DM is not the main perpetrator of both murders that MS was also involved in.

We're also dealing with two separate murders here. There may be some who believe that in the TB case, MS was brought along for the ride strictly to drive the Yukon away from TB's home after DM made a decision to buy the truck. To drive it back home to Maple Gate. It doesn't appear as though MS has been implicated by any of the evidence of the aftermath of TB's murder, other than his charge. Brilliant criminal genius or innocent dupe?

Maybe the thread should be renamed "Mark Smich, Not Innocent But Possibly Duped"?

MOO

 

[Alethea Dice]

That's a creative interpretation of a written quote IMO.

I said he originally denied speaking to her. The he admitted to speaking to her saying she was asking for drugs and a place to stay, both of which he claims he denied her. Considering the charge against him, I'd say LE don't believe him in that regard.


MOO

It's not creative at all. And IMO it is the only way the middle part - "maybe we spoke once or twice" - makes any sense. JMO

The post I was responding to wasn't the one where you said he denied speaking to her. It was the one where you said:

Until I see a link to any of this as facts in evidence, my opinion is that the person(s) who is responsible for LB's disappearance is also responsible for her belongings disappearing as well. Including the IPad she was loaned and her phone that she last used to call Dellen Millard, even though he tried to deny that.

Sorry, if I didn't include all of your previous posts in my reply. But, regardless, how does "maybe we spoke once or twice" translate into "I never spoke to her at all".

JMO

 

[Kamille]

It's not creative at all. And IMO it is the only way the middle part - "maybe we spoke once or twice" - makes any sense. JMO

The post I was responding to wasn't the one where you said he denied speaking to her. It was the one where you said:



Sorry, if I didn't include all of your previous posts in my reply. But, regardless, how does "maybe we spoke once or twice" translate into "I never spoke to her at all".

JMO

I said he TRIED to deny it. He admitted eventually that they spoke once or twice after being told about the phone records, even though her records indicate 8 calls.

MOO

ETA quote...

“First, he denies all the calls: ‘Maybe we spoke once or twice, but definitely not eight times.’ Flat-out denies it,” Mr. Lerner recalled. “Then I showed him the phone bill and his tone totally changed: ‘Okay, yeah, we spoke. She was looking for drugs and for a place to stay,’ and he denied her on both of those requests. And then he just had to go. He was in a rush – had to go.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/what-if-game-haunts-babcock-friend/article18832997/

First he denies ALL the calls. Then he says MAYBE we spoke once or twice (still not admitting). Then he's confronted withe the records and admits that he did speak to her. He was admitting nothing until confronted with those records. Not the actions of a friend worried about what happened to another friend and eager to help anyone figure it out.