Motive: The Truck

[Archangel7]

Wow. Does cancellation of MRO equal illegitimate activity?
Was WM was running an illegitimate business until he received the MRO certification? One would think so after reading your post.
If plans for the business were being explored post-cancellation, does that deem a business illegitimate? Unlawful?
Companies on the verge of bankruptcy are in trouble, does not make them illegitimate.

If DM planned to capture and kill TB and the plan was unsuccessful because he was caught for making stupid mistakes in carrying out his plan, then perhaps you can insult his intelligence as a criminal. but I didn't realize the trial was over and a verdict was passed in this regard. How are you so sure (other than "he's still sitting in jail", which is not proof).

Read my post again and the conversation between me and Jubalee.

The question was posed and answered about if he would/does run a legit business, apparently he won't.........

We assume the MRO was legit, he wouldn't run it, period.
He is in trouble. Charged(at the moment)with confinement theft> 5k and 1deg Murder. That was the subject of the posts, both mine and Jubalee.

Tell me Snoofo, how are you so positive he's innocent? Give me PROBABLE CAUSE to believe he is uninvolved and totally innocent if you can.
He is perceived "guilty" simply on the reported evidence so far with no bail and no words from him or his lawyer.

Based on that alone(reported news) it is more probable than not that he IS guilty.
Sort of the definition of probable cause eh?

 

[Sillybilly]

AA7 didn't say Millard Air wasn't a legit business ... only that "DM wouldn't run a legit business". I interpret that to mean that he chose not to run (i.e. he shut down) the MRO but appears to have still been running an illegitimate chop shop.

I doubt that anybody here has ever been charged with a serious crime,let alone forcible confinement, 1st degree murder and theft over. Trial/verdict aside, guilty or innocent, I'd consider myself to be pretty simple if I got set up in that regard, and in pretty "serious trouble" to be sitting in jail facing such a quandry.

ETA: I see AA7 already addressed this while I was waking up here.

 

[Sillybilly]

Sort of the definition of probable cause eh?

<rsbm>

from:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/probable+cause

Probable Cause

Apparent facts discovered through logical inquiry that would lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an accused person has committed a crime, thereby warranting his or her prosecution ...

 

[Alethea Dice]

DM only cancelled the MRO certificate, not MillardAir. We do know that he was in discussions with the airport manager regarding future plans for the company, such as a different commercial business or new tenant.

They talked about Millard&#8217;s plans for the future of the company, which Wood recalls as potentially including a new tenant or different commercial business within the confines of the 50-year lease.

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/activity-at-millard-air-hangar-not-what-airport-boss-expected-1.1302652

Lot's of people get into trouble. Doesn't necessarily mean they are "simple".

JMO

 

[Archangel7]

DM only cancelled the MRO certificate, not MillardAir. We do know that he was in discussions with the airport manager regarding future plans for the company, such as a different commercial business or new tenant.




http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/activity-at-millard-air-hangar-not-what-airport-boss-expected-1.1302652

Lot's of people get into trouble. Doesn't necessarily mean they are "simple".

JMO

Then what if not simple? Criminal, gullible, stupid, weirdo, sociopath? What would be your wording as an alternate theory provider?

I mean it's really not hard to stay out of trouble and not be lead down the primrose path either. Or get a job, or run a legit business, or not be in possession of stolen goods, etc., etc.

 

[Snoofo]

Tell me Snoofo, how are you so positive he's innocent? Give me PROBABLE CAUSE to believe he is uninvolved and totally innocent if you can.
He is perceived "guilty" simply on the reported evidence so far with no bail and no words from him or his lawyer.

Based on that alone(reported news) it is more probable than not that he IS guilty.
Sort of the definition of probable cause eh?

I am not positive he is innocent. In fact I have never said that he is he innocent. And as surely as I can say that, I can also say I am not positive he is guilty, <modnsip>.

From the little bit we know about DM as a person there is probable cause for me to say he has been used and inadvertently ended up in this mess and taking the fall for real crooks disguised as friends. The particulars of the probable cause involve a sensitive subject and I decided long ago not to share them on this forum for personal reasons, but thanks for asking.

 

[Archangel7]

I am not positive he is innocent. In fact I have never said that he is he innocent. And as surely as I can say that, I can also say I am not positive he is guilty, in fact I have reason to believe he can be innocent and the reasons I have found are good enough for me to defend the person against those who have all the same facts but are certain of his guilt.

From the little bit we know about DM as a person there is probable cause for me to say he has been used and inadvertently ended up in this mess and taking the fall for real crooks disguised as friends. The particulars of the probable cause involve a sensitive subject and I decided long ago not to share them on this forum for personal reasons, but thanks for asking.

I can certainly respect that.

Regardless, he is apparently involved in some way and to a degree(depending on one's interpretation) which again begs the question is he criminal, gullible, stupid, weirdo, sociopath?

Not likely to matter which reason why he was involved, given the end result&#8230;

 

[Alethea Dice]

Then what if not simple? Criminal, gullible, stupid, weirdo, sociopath? What would be your wording as an alternate theory provider?

I mean it's really not hard to stay out of trouble and not be lead down the primrose path either. Or get a job, or run a legit business, or not be in possession of stolen goods, etc., etc.

Some may get stuck in the middle of a bad situation and don't know how to get out of it safely, some get into trouble by trusting the wrong people, some acting out of perceived self-defense, some through fear, jealousy, drunken rage, wrong place at the wrong time, some are simply criminals or evil, and some have mental problems, to name a few reasons. As for DM, I have no idea why because all I've heard so far is what has been released to the media, which has not yet provided any reasonably understandable motive IMO. What little LE releases to MSM would, for obvious reasons, only point to his guilt. As for his personality and whether he is "simple", I've certainly read more comments from people who know him that say he was polite, business-like, intelligent, generous, and that they were surprised he could be involved in something like this, than I have heard say that he is "simple" or evil.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

Then what if not simple? Criminal, gullible, stupid, weirdo, sociopath? What would be your wording as an alternate theory provider?

I mean it's really not hard to stay out of trouble and not be lead down the primrose path either. Or get a job, or run a legit business, or not be in possession of stolen goods, etc., etc.

Has DM been charged with possession of stolen goods? Has it been released that the motorcycle trailer was re-registered in his name? Has he been charged yet for possession of any of the other "less than 10" vehicles and parts in the hangar?

 

[Sillybilly]

Has DM been charged with possession of stolen goods? Has it been released that the motorcycle trailer was re-registered in his name? Has he been charged yet for possession of any of the other "less than 10" vehicles and parts in the hangar?

I believe AA7's reference to "possession of stolen goods" is actually the Theft Over $5000 charge. AA7 may correct me on this, but it is my understanding that when you are the one who has stolen something, if there is proof that you are the one who stole it, you aren't charged separately with "possession" even though it is in your actual possession. On the other hand, if you have something that is stolen in your possession but it can't be proven that you were the one who actually stole it, you get charged with possession but not theft. The theft is the more serious charge.

ETA: This probably says it more simply:

from:
http://www.slsedmonton.com/criminal/theft-fraud-posession/

where the act of theft and the possession of stolen goods are done at the same time, the person cannot be convicted of illegal possession of the same things.

 

[Juballee]

I can certainly respect that.

Regardless, he is apparently involved in some way and to a degree(depending on one's interpretation) which again begs the question is he criminal, gullible, stupid, weirdo, sociopath?

Not likely to matter which reason why he was involved, given the end result…

I am confused by the statement that it is "not likely to matter which reason why he was involved, given the end result". To me this sounds like no matter what DM says, it has already been decided that he is guilty since TB will still be dead. To me, that is the very definition of prejudice, to have already judged him guilty without even hearing his side of the story. Are there no such things as extenuating circumstances, are people not given the opportunity to defend themselves before they are deemed guilty?

If law and order were really that cut and dry, we wouldn't need judges or juries, robots could just spell out the punishment for each crime and save us all that time and effort and appearance of justice. I have a feeling that the majority of people made up their minds about DM right from the beginning thanks to the media's spin on it, and it really makes me wonder if there is at this point anything that he could say that would change people's presumptions in regards to his possible guilt or innocence. The truth is that we have only heard one side of the story so far, and it is very easy to pick sides when you've only ever heard from one side, but it is, again, the very meaning of prejudice, to decide before you have heard all the information, to pre-judge a situation or event, in my opinion.

To me, there is a big difference between someone killing someone because they are a sociopath who planned something or if they are just a gullible person who got caught up in something that they had no idea was going to happen. I believe that the laws and penal system were set up to account for such factors, which is why I feel it is wrong just to say that no matter what the reason for involment, if the end result is the same that person is guilty, end of story. I believe that if you are going to cast your judgement on someone, you should at least hear their side of the story first. If someone only watched the first part of "The People's Court", where just the plaintiff gets to present their case and they never heard a word from the defendant, most people would automatically pick the plaintiff as the winner. That is the prejudice that comes from only hearing one side of the story, and I just can't respect prejudice, personally.

 

[Archangel7]

Some may get stuck in the middle of a bad situation and don't know how to get out of it safely, some get into trouble by trusting the wrong people, some acting out of perceived self-defense, some through fear, jealousy, drunken rage, wrong place at the wrong time, some are simply criminals or evil, and some have mental problems, to name a few reasons. As for DM, I have no idea why because all I've heard so far is what has been released to the media, which has not yet provided any reasonably understandable motive IMO. What little LE releases to MSM would, for obvious reasons, only point to his guilt. As for his personality and whether he is "simple", I've certainly read more comments from people who know him that say he was polite, business-like, intelligent, generous, and that they were surprised he could be involved in something like this, than I have heard say that he is "simple" or evil.

JMO

AD a crime is a crime(as charged) based on reasonable suspicion, probable cause and evidence. Regardless of what contravention of Canadian law(theft, confinement, murder 1 or what circumstances prevailed, a charge was laid.

Now, the Crown can and does "blow off" crimes as it sees fit however, to date they have not decided to do so in this case.

Regardless, "stuck in the middle of a bad situation and don't know how to get out of it safely, some get into trouble by trusting the wrong people, some acting out of perceived self-defense, some through fear, jealousy, drunken rage, wrong place at the wrong time, some are simply criminals or evil, and some have mental problems, to name a few reasons" IS NOT a defense nor does it indicate an innocent uninvolved person.

A "Patty Hearst" defense is a poor defense as is a "Flip Wilson" defense.

As far as the public is aware(via media) DM is charged with theft(over 5k) confinement and 1st degree Murder.

He is either incredibly guilty or incredibly stupid, incredibly simple, a weirdo, a sociopath, AND guilty.

Is the proposal that he is innocent? Uninvolved? Has no guilt?

 

[Archangel7]

I am confused by the statement that it is "not likely to matter which reason why he was involved, given the end result". To me this sounds like no matter what DM says, it has already been decided that he is guilty since TB will still be dead. To me, that is the very definition of prejudice, to have already judged him guilty without even hearing his side of the story. Are there no such things as extenuating circumstances, are people not given the opportunity to defend themselves before they are deemed guilty?

If law and order were really that cut and dry, we wouldn't need judges or juries, robots could just spell out the punishment for each crime and save us all that time and effort and appearance of justice. I have a feeling that the majority of people made up their minds about DM right from the beginning thanks to the media's spin on it, and it really makes me wonder if there is at this point anything that he could say that would change people's presumptions in regards to his possible guilt or innocence. The truth is that we have only heard one side of the story so far, and it is very easy to pick sides when you've only ever heard from one side, but it is, again, the very meaning of prejudice, to decide before you have heard all the information, to pre-judge a situation or event, in my opinion.

To me, there is a big difference between someone killing someone because they are a sociopath who planned something or if they are just a gullible person who got caught up in something that they had no idea was going to happen. I believe that the laws and penal system were set up to account for such factors, which is why I feel it is wrong just to say that no matter what the reason for involment, if the end result is the same that person is guilty, end of story. I believe that if you are going to cast your judgement on someone, you should at least hear their side of the story first. If someone only watched the first part of "The People's Court", where just the plaintiff gets to present their case and they never heard a word from the defendant, most people would automatically pick the plaintiff as the winner. That is the prejudice that comes from only hearing one side of the story, and I just can't respect prejudice, personally.

Don't confuse courtroom decorum and protocol with a forum verdict based on media reports.

See Patty Hearst case, she was innocent/uninvolved and gullible in some folk's opinion.

His "gullibility" ended the nanosecond TB was murdered and no police were notified, so did his lack of involvement, his innocence, yada, yada.

 

[Alethea Dice]

AD a crime is a crime(as charged) based on reasonable suspicion, probable cause and evidence. Regardless of what contravention of Canadian law(theft, confinement, murder 1 or what circumstances prevailed, a charge was laid.

Now, the Crown can and does "blow off" crimes as it sees fit however, to date they have not decided to do so in this case.

Regardless, "stuck in the middle of a bad situation and don't know how to get out of it safely, some get into trouble by trusting the wrong people, some acting out of perceived self-defense, some through fear, jealousy, drunken rage, wrong place at the wrong time, some are simply criminals or evil, and some have mental problems, to name a few reasons" IS NOT a defense nor does it indicate an innocent uninvolved person.

A "Patty Hearst" defense is a poor defense as is a "Flip Wilson" defense.

As far as the public is aware(via media) DM is charged with theft(over 5k) confinement and 1st degree Murder.

He is either incredibly guilty or incredibly stupid, incredibly simple, a weirdo, a sociopath, AND guilty.

Is the proposal that he is innocent? Uninvolved? Has no guilt?

That may be your opinion, but it's certainly not fact. A charge is just a charge "based on reasonable suspicion, probable cause and evidence", but a crime, and guilt, must be proven in a court of law. And it is the outcome of the trial that determines guilt and the crime committed, not whether or not the Crown decides to "blow off" the crime.

I didn't say that all of the items listed are a defense, simply that all are reasons (other than being "simple") that people sometimes get into trouble. But none of those items are a defense?? People do get acquitted when acting out of self-defense or fear of a threat to their life. And some are even found not guilty due to their mental problems. Some of the other reasons may not be a defense of no involvement, but they certainly could change the level of the charges and the scope of an accused's involvement.

<modsnip> However, my opinion remains that the charge needs to be proven in a court of law by a disclosure of all the facts, not just the facts chosen to be released on a person's arrest.

As to your last paragraph, once again, I have never claimed that he is innocent, uninvolved or has no guilt. I simply choose to reserve my decision until a more complete version of what happened is available.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

I am confused by the statement that it is "not likely to matter which reason why he was involved, given the end result". To me this sounds like no matter what DM says, it has already been decided that he is guilty since TB will still be dead. To me, that is the very definition of prejudice, to have already judged him guilty without even hearing his side of the story. Are there no such things as extenuating circumstances, are people not given the opportunity to defend themselves before they are deemed guilty?

If law and order were really that cut and dry, we wouldn't need judges or juries, robots could just spell out the punishment for each crime and save us all that time and effort and appearance of justice. I have a feeling that the majority of people made up their minds about DM right from the beginning thanks to the media's spin on it, and it really makes me wonder if there is at this point anything that he could say that would change people's presumptions in regards to his possible guilt or innocence. The truth is that we have only heard one side of the story so far, and it is very easy to pick sides when you've only ever heard from one side, but it is, again, the very meaning of prejudice, to decide before you have heard all the information, to pre-judge a situation or event, in my opinion.

To me, there is a big difference between someone killing someone because they are a sociopath who planned something or if they are just a gullible person who got caught up in something that they had no idea was going to happen. I believe that the laws and penal system were set up to account for such factors, which is why I feel it is wrong just to say that no matter what the reason for involment, if the end result is the same that person is guilty, end of story. I believe that if you are going to cast your judgement on someone, you should at least hear their side of the story first. If someone only watched the first part of "The People's Court", where just the plaintiff gets to present their case and they never heard a word from the defendant, most people would automatically pick the plaintiff as the winner. That is the prejudice that comes from only hearing one side of the story, and I just can't respect prejudice, personally.

Unfortunately, Juballee, there are some who feel that a trial is just a formality. If you also follow a couple of the other forums, you will see that mindset posted there as well. Thankfully, there are always a few others who still defend the justice system and every individual's right to a fair trial.

JMO

 

[Juballee]

Don't confuse courtroom decorum and protocol with a forum verdict based on media reports.

See Patty Hearst case, she was innocent/uninvolved and gullible in some folk's opinion.

His "gullibility" ended the nanosecond TB was murdered and no police were notified, so did his lack of involvement, his innocence, yada, yada.

If that were the case, then there would be no distinction in the law between murder, manslaughter, being an accessory and being a witness. I believe that the criminal code does hold different degrees of punishment for those differing crimes, therefore, they must not be the same thing. I am sure most lawyers and people who deal with crime on a daily basis could confirm this. If his innocence ended the nanosecond that he didn't report the crime, then that would mean that failure to report a crime would be the same as committing that particular crime. Also, if we are going to be judging people's guilt and innocence based on nanosecond responses, we would all be guilty, since it takes more than a nano second to react to anything; no one can whip out their phone and call LE in a nanosecond, so the bar for guilt in that measure it set impossibly low, trapping everyone.

Say we all witness a man being shot in the street; in the above scenario, everyone who froze in shock for more than a nano second would be just as guilty as the trigger man for not instantly reporting it. Even if we extended this nanosecond rule to say 5 minutes, there would still be some people in that crowd who do not call 911 because they can see that many other people already did, so by this rule, that would make those people just as guilty as the murderer. This is not how we judge guilt and innocence in this country, that is why there are varying degrees of charges and extenuating circumstances need to be addressed.

I maintain my opinion that some people pre-judge things based on one side of the story, and I think that they will have to travel to the other side of the world to find a jury pool that hasn't already been prejudiced by the media, if they want a fair trial.

 

[robynhood]

'His "gullibility" ended the nanosecond TB was murdered and no police were notified, so did his lack of involvement, his innocence, yada, yada." ....'...I am grateful to quote Ac above...
....just my opinion as I tend to agreeing...JMO again.

...thanks AC...re read TB was MURDERED ...and indignity was done to his dead body..DM is charged with evidence !....that is all I have to say...robyhood.

 

[swedie]

I am confused by the statement that it is "not likely to matter which reason why he was involved, given the end result". To me this sounds like no matter what DM says, it has already been decided that he is guilty since TB will still be dead. To me, that is the very definition of prejudice, to have already judged him guilty without even hearing his side of the story. Are there no such things as extenuating circumstances, are people not given the opportunity to defend themselves before they are deemed guilty?

If law and order were really that cut and dry, we wouldn't need judges or juries, robots could just spell out the punishment for each crime and save us all that time and effort and appearance of justice. I have a feeling that the majority of people made up their minds about DM right from the beginning thanks to the media's spin on it, and it really makes me wonder if there is at this point anything that he could say that would change people's presumptions in regards to his possible guilt or innocence. The truth is that we have only heard one side of the story so far, and it is very easy to pick sides when you've only ever heard from one side, but it is, again, the very meaning of prejudice, to decide before you have heard all the information, to pre-judge a situation or event, in my opinion.

To me, there is a big difference between someone killing someone because they are a sociopath who planned something or if they are just a gullible person who got caught up in something that they had no idea was going to happen. I believe that the laws and penal system were set up to account for such factors, which is why I feel it is wrong just to say that no matter what the reason for involment, if the end result is the same that person is guilty, end of story. I believe that if you are going to cast your judgement on someone, you should at least hear their side of the story first. If someone only watched the first part of "The People's Court", where just the plaintiff gets to present their case and they never heard a word from the defendant, most people would automatically pick the plaintiff as the winner. That is the prejudice that comes from only hearing one side of the story, and I just can't respect prejudice, personally.

BBM and HTH. We are not just getting one side of the story in this case. We are getting information from LE which may I elaborate are facts to this case. This is the information people are relying on in which to base their opinions, theories and judgement on. IMHO I do not see anything in the MSM which has been twisted to show the one sidedness you are suggesting. Even when errors have been made in the MSM, MSM are quick to correct the facts, giving the example of possible more remains found on DM's farmland property.

UBM If either MS or DM got caught up in something that they were unaware of what was going to happen, I would tend to believe it was MS who was the gullible one but that is JMO. From what we know DM was the one who was driving TB's truck. My guess would be MS was following in DM's Yukon and from what it sounds like or has been implied, TB was murdered shortly after leaving his home. So what would cause DM to pull over in that short time in order for MS to be the murderer? Of course unless MS wasn't the gullible one and they had planned for it to happen that way. It just makes sense in this scenario DM was the murderer and IMO I figure a gun was used leading to the removal of the seats from TB's truck. But to get back to the gullible suggestion, I don't believe either one was gullible in regards to the theft of Tim's truck. Murder maybe on MS's part.

IBM IMHO I do not think we are going to hear from DM and get his side of the story ever. His side of the story will only come from his defense if we're lucky to hear it. The defense doesn't have to provide any explanation or evidence. Again referring to MR's case. That chose not to tell his side of the story because he knew he was guilty on all three charges and anything he said to proclaim his innocence would be proven as nothing but lies. He was known and proven to be a pathological liar. But then the disgusting pig wanted to share information privately with Tori's mother after sentencing. What a sicko. That case was a great example to show how many people cast judgement on MR based on information released by LE and MSM and as it turned out, everything reported by LE and MSM was correct, so I HTH to understand why people do and rightfully can pass judgement before a case is goes through the judicial system. All MOO.

FYI a jury is chosen by both sides, defense and Crown. They are to be impartial and make their decisions based on evidence; circumstantial and direct. Their decisions are not to be based on emotional and hearsay issues. The evidence will speak for itself and there will be no need to rely on anything other then the evidence to prove guilt or innocence of the accused.

 

[robynhood]

Swede you are 100 percent correct...let the evidence speak for Tim Bosma....the TRUTH will come out..........IMo the police already have the evidence that is why they are both sitting in Jail...IMo only>>>> they belong exactly where they are....NO Person should Imo EVER have such an indignity done upon them...the end..robynhood..You can count on me>>> to tell you all the truth from Our Judical system ...tweet tweet when this goes to court. May SHarlene Bosma know that ONT stands behind her...!I agree I do not think DM will ever say a darn word!

 

[Sillybilly]

Unfortunately, Juballee, there are some who feel that a trial is just a formality. If you also follow a couple of the other forums, you will see that mindset posted there as well. Thankfully, there are always a few others who still defend the justice system and every individual's right to a fair trial.

JMO

Are you saying that anyone who has formed an opinion of either innocence or guilt based on available evidence/information todate is wrong to have formed such opinion (which can of course change, depending on what additional evidence/information is forthcoming)? Are you saying that, unlike you, anyone who has formed an opinion based on such available evidence/information todate is not a defender of justice or a person's right to a fair trial?

IMO, the evidence/information we have available to us todate points to DM's guilt. My opinion is not a "mindset" I reserve the right to change that opinion at the drop of a hat AND WILL ... if evidence/information comes to light that points towards innocence. Am I a bad person for having an opinion at any point in time?

Having no opinion either way, or good people believing in innocence vs bad people having an opinion of guilt = end of discussion for fear of being accused of not believing in justice or an individual's rights? C'mon

:seeya: