Tim Bosma: Dellen Millard & Mark Smich chgd w/Murder; Christina Noudga, Accessory #3

[Tamarind]

DM trained his buddies to call him Boss. Maybe he was a real power tripper and simply felt pleasure at being so powerful he could make people disappear? Now he's got DP feeding him Napoleon and RP, Sun Tzu. Does that kind of reading appeal to a master personality or a slave personality? Some are born to lead, others to follow. The lawyers are inspired by great warriors of the past because they seek to be masters of the situation. Remember the copy of On War in DM's cell? This is a man who sees himself as master, leader, warrior, not penitent, Christian, slave.

IMO MS is the sidekick.

Can you link me to where it explains that he trained his buddies to call him boss? Or did the buddies simply choose to call him boss because they were working at the hanger?

My last read was Game of Thrones all five novels in sequence, does that make me submissive to the 'game' or someone who wishes to reveal the game?

 

[Tamarind]

Anyway, if the poor kid is framing, using and abusing the rich kid, why is the poor kid keeping his mouth shut? Wouldn't he want to dump on the rich kid?



http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...y_they_want_to_tell_their_story_but_cant.html

There is still a loyalty between the two. DP was happy to talk of a "framing aspect" initially but DM doesn't have seem to have turned on MS either.

Maybe they both know that neither is a killer. It's possible.

 

[Tamarind]

There will be more info coming out about his high risk behaviour, I'm sure of it. He was active on his Steam gaming on the same day he killed Tim Bosma. It was the last time he went on. Communicating with his other murder partner? Getting himself geared up for action? JMO

I do know that some people who use interactive gaming actually use other peoples user id. Has it been proven who used the Steam account? Or are we simply assuming it was the one whose account it was? Or did someone set up the account in his name and use it, as someone did with the hotmail account that was in his name and used by another?

 

[swedie]

Here's a hypothetical question:

There is a brand of hot sneakers all the kids are dying for. There are two kids who are friends; one is rich, one is poor. The rich kid has 10 pairs of these shoes, and the poor kid has none. They go for a walk together one night. The next day a third boy is missing and it is assumed he was killed for his shoes. His shoes are found hidden outside one of the rich boy's houses, the body found hidden at another of the rich kid's properties. Both boys are arrested and charged with the muder.

In this hypothetical situation, would one naturally assume that it was the rich boy who had come up with the idea because he wanted to have an 11th pair of the shoes? Or might one assume that it was the poor boy who might have wanted the shoes badly enough to kill for them?

Did the rich kid give a pair of his hot sneakers to his girlfriend and when they broke up he wanted his sneakers back but she refused, so he murdered her? Then he murdered his father because his father refused to buy him the 11 pair of hot sneakers? Did LE find the murdered boy's cell phone with text messages from the two other boy's discussing the hot sneakers? Maybe LE discovered the rich kid didn't buy these ten pairs of sneakers, but actually stole many pairs. What other evidence was found? Not enough information in your hypothetical scenario to render a decision in MO. Your hypothetical is comparable to only giving us this: DM and maybe MS like Dodge trucks so they go out on a test drive with the owner who is selling his. The owner TB is found murdered and burnt beyond recognition of DM's property and TB's truck is found in MB's driveway. See how that works? Not enough information. If you add more to your scenario, as MSM has in this case, maybe then it's worth rendering my opinion on your scenario. But that's JMO.

-TB's cell phone found with information on it in Brantford, related to one of the accused and on a route DM most likely travelled from TO to the farmland in Ayr numerous times,
-incinerator found on DM's property,
-TB's remains found on DM's property,
-indication of stolen vehicles/parts in the hangar,
-deceased father and ex-lover connected to DM,
-coincidentally DM paid off his condo the day after TB's disappearance,
-other test drives of Dodge Rams arranged, coincidentally DM also owned a Dodge Ram,
-identification from witnesses of accused, accused acted suspicious,
-tattoo ID'ed
-the accusation of the gun used to murder DM's father,
-DM had buddies with bad reputations/criminal histories; MWJ and MS,
-suggestion of a thrill kill,
And I'm sure there's more if anyone wants to add to this list.

DM got away with murder twice in the past and assumed he would get away with it again. He enjoyed the sensation/rush he got from murdering and eluding LE. TB's truck was an added bonus. Murdering his father was a bonus, the money he would stand to inherit from his father's estate. LB, well she just got in his way and was a thorn in his side. He wouldn't need her for sex any more because he had a girlfriend(s) who may have been jealous and always bickering at him about his "friend" LB. JMO.

 

[Juballee]

Thank you all for your opinions on my hypothetical question. I found the responses to be very interesting, in my opinion. Here is the data I have extrapolated from it:

One response supplied an alternative motive outside of that given by the police (shoes) in the example, that of a thrill kill. The existence of the 'Thrill kill' as a motive is highly contested by scientists in general. In this case specifically, Detective Carbone said that it was not the motive, if I recall correctly.

Another jumped ahead and added additional charges outside those in the given scenario as an explanation.
The reason that I did not include the other charges in the scenario goes to the timeline aspect and to try to distinguish how heavily his assumed guilt in the TB case relies on him also being guilty of the other crimes. In other words, before the other possible crimes came forward, a lot of people where shaking their heads, trying to come up with a motive for someone like DM to kill for a truck. My scenario takes just the elements that we knew about in the beginning and tries to find a motive that doesn't involve him already being a killer and a thief.

One response was a suggestion that the rich kid wanted the shoes more, and that the poor kid would have been smart enough to dump the body somewhere that doesn't implicate either of them. This is the only response that actually stayed entirely inside the confines of the scenario, in my opinion. It is possible that the rich kid was just greedy for shoes and that the poor kid owned none because he didn't care for them at all, so this could be a possible motive. Probably not the most likely, in my opinion, but still possible. So, thank you for this response.

Another suggestion was that rich kids regularly customize and then resell shoes, which is possible, given the confines of the scenario, but again, not the most probable. But then the scenario is abandoned again to change it to one where the poor kid is a coke dealer and the rich kid had to kill for the shoes to pay for $100 worth of coke.

One response tried to stay within the scenario by suggesting that perhaps the poor kid hid everything at the rich kids house to throw suspicion off of himself, which to me, would seem to have a higher probability as well. But then we get off course by bringing in another kid with a grudge.

One response questioned why, if the poor kid is dumping it all on the rich kid, why he hasn't also tried to talk and pin it all on the rich kid as well, which is a good question, in my opinion. I suppose it could be that the poor kid knows that the evidence will not back up his story.

And the final response (to date) was one where an entirely new scenario was presented in which the rich kid kills everyone who doesn't give him shoes, and that most of his shoes were already stolen to begin with. I find this to be so far outside of the scenario as to reinforce the idea that without adding additional elements to the original scenario, there is no other way to make it seem as if naturally the rich kid had the stronger motive of the two.

 

[SnooperDuper]

I do know that some people who use interactive gaming actually use other peoples user id. Has it been proven who used the Steam account? Or are we simply assuming it was the one whose account it was? Or did someone set up the account in his name and use it, as someone did with the hotmail account that was in his name and used by another?

The hotmail account was simply referenced by another - there is no proof anyone else ever used it.

If someone was impersonating DM using his Steam account, his hotmail account, his phone, his burner phone, his Yukon, his calls from the Etobicoke area, his hanger, his incinerator and his rural property...don't you think there would be enough evidence to uncover who DM's absolute every minute doppelganger was?

ETA: and then where were DM's "real" accounts? Was DM "off the grid" while his buddies impersonated him fully because DM had no technology? Not likely, given the computer related course he was kicked out of for cheating (i.e., DM knows about computers but isn't smart enough to cover his tracks around them, IMO).

If every activity DM ever did is suspect, isn't it a simpler solution to say DM is the bad guy, than to imagine a mystery person who left no trace impersonating DM 100% of the time using all of his technology id's?

 

[SnooperDuper]

DM trained his buddies to call him Boss. Maybe he was a real power tripper and simply felt pleasure at being so powerful he could make people disappear? Now he's got DP feeding him Napoleon and RP, Sun Tzu. Does that kind of reading appeal to a master personality or a slave personality? Some are born to lead, others to follow. The lawyers are inspired by great warriors of the past because they seek to be masters of the situation. Remember the copy of On War in DM's cell? This is a man who sees himself as master, leader, warrior, not penitent, Christian, slave.

IMO MS is the sidekick.

Can you link me to where it explains that he trained his buddies to call him boss? Or did the buddies simply choose to call him boss because they were working at the hanger?

My last read was Game of Thrones all five novels in sequence, does that make me submissive to the 'game' or someone who wishes to reveal the game?

Check out Nietzsche's ideas of will to power and master-slave morality, here are the Coles notes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_to_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master–slave_morality

 

[SnooperDuper]

Thank you all for your opinions on my hypothetical question. I found the responses to be very interesting, in my opinion. Here is the data I have extrapolated from it:

One response supplied an alternative motive outside of that given by the police (shoes) in the example, that of a thrill kill. The existence of the 'Thrill kill' as a motive is highly contested by scientists in general. In this case specifically, Detective Carbone said that it was not the motive, if I recall correctly.

thank you for your food for thought Juballee.

Is it scientists or psychologists who we should be asking about "thrill kills"? Certainly many have a personality where control and other's suffering brings them pleasure, or we would not have child abuse in the world.

Another jumped ahead and added additional charges outside those in the given scenario as an explanation.
The reason that I did not include the other charges in the scenario goes to the timeline aspect and to try to distinguish how heavily his assumed guilt in the TB case relies on him also being guilty of the other crimes. In other words, before the other possible crimes came forward, a lot of people where shaking their heads, trying to come up with a motive for someone like DM to kill for a truck. My scenario takes just the elements that we knew about in the beginning and tries to find a motive that doesn't involve him already being a killer and a thief.

One response was a suggestion that the rich kid wanted the shoes more, and that the poor kid would have been smart enough to dump the body somewhere that doesn't implicate either of them. This is the only response that actually stayed entirely inside the confines of the scenario, in my opinion. It is possible that the rich kid was just greedy for shoes and that the poor kid owned none because he didn't care for them at all, so this could be a possible motive. Probably not the most likely, in my opinion, but still possible. So, thank you for this response.

Another suggestion was that rich kids regularly customize and then resell shoes, which is possible, given the confines of the scenario, but again, not the most probable. But then the scenario is abandoned again to change it to one where the poor kid is a coke dealer and the rich kid had to kill for the shoes to pay for $100 worth of coke.

No, IMO in this scenario the rich kid wanted to kill for the shoes to pay for $100 worth of coke...he wasn't compelled to steal, he just wanted to.

One response tried to stay within the scenario by suggesting that perhaps the poor kid hid everything at the rich kids house to throw suspicion off of himself, which to me, would seem to have a higher probability as well. But then we get off course by bringing in another kid with a grudge.

One response questioned why, if the poor kid is dumping it all on the rich kid, why he hasn't also tried to talk and pin it all on the rich kid as well, which is a good question, in my opinion. I suppose it could be that the poor kid knows that the evidence will not back up his story.

But you can argue, if the evidence does not support the poor kid, why does it not support the (tongue-tied) rich kid either? Because they were in it together?

And the final response (to date) was one where an entirely new scenario was presented in which the rich kid kills everyone who doesn't give him shoes, and that most of his shoes were already stolen to begin with. I find this to be so far outside of the scenario as to reinforce the idea that without adding additional elements to the original scenario, there is no other way to make it seem as if naturally the rich kid had the stronger motive of the two.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Controversy: DP's stalling

A Little More on the Bosma Murder Trial Delay

The lawyer for one of the men accused in the murder of Ancaster’s Tim Bosma says he needs more time to prepare.

Deepak Paradkar says he’s still in the process of being retained by Dellen Millard, so additional time is required to prepare motions that will now be heard in September.

http://www.900chml.com/2015/02/25/a-little-more-information-on-the-bosma-murder-trial-delay/

The lawyer, Deepak Paradkar, says he’s in the process of taking over the case and needed more time to prepare motions.

http://www.am980.ca/2015/02/25/39789/

 

[redheart]

Thank you all for your opinions on my hypothetical question. I found the responses to be very interesting, in my opinion. Here is the data I have extrapolated from it: ....

RSBM. IMO your hypothetical scenario is just another lame line of defense to try out for DM. I have followed this case for quite awhile and am past the point of playing pretend games. If I want to do some mind exercises with hypotheticals I will do that elsewhere, not on the Tim Bosma forum. If you are interested in that, great, but it's pretty ridiculous to say "aha!" when almost no one follows your parameters.

 

[swedie]

Thank you all for your opinions on my hypothetical question. I found the responses to be very interesting, in my opinion. Here is the data I have extrapolated from it:

One response supplied an alternative motive outside of that given by the police (shoes) in the example, that of a thrill kill. The existence of the 'Thrill kill' as a motive is highly contested by scientists in general. In this case specifically, Detective Carbone said that it was not the motive, if I recall correctly.

Another jumped ahead and added additional charges outside those in the given scenario as an explanation.
The reason that I did not include the other charges in the scenario goes to the timeline aspect and to try to distinguish how heavily his assumed guilt in the TB case relies on him also being guilty of the other crimes. In other words, before the other possible crimes came forward, a lot of people where shaking their heads, trying to come up with a motive for someone like DM to kill for a truck. My scenario takes just the elements that we knew about in the beginning and tries to find a motive that doesn't involve him already being a killer and a thief.

One response was a suggestion that the rich kid wanted the shoes more, and that the poor kid would have been smart enough to dump the body somewhere that doesn't implicate either of them. This is the only response that actually stayed entirely inside the confines of the scenario, in my opinion. It is possible that the rich kid was just greedy for shoes and that the poor kid owned none because he didn't care for them at all, so this could be a possible motive. Probably not the most likely, in my opinion, but still possible. So, thank you for this response.

Another suggestion was that rich kids regularly customize and then resell shoes, which is possible, given the confines of the scenario, but again, not the most probable. But then the scenario is abandoned again to change it to one where the poor kid is a coke dealer and the rich kid had to kill for the shoes to pay for $100 worth of coke.

One response tried to stay within the scenario by suggesting that perhaps the poor kid hid everything at the rich kids house to throw suspicion off of himself, which to me, would seem to have a higher probability as well. But then we get off course by bringing in another kid with a grudge.

One response questioned why, if the poor kid is dumping it all on the rich kid, why he hasn't also tried to talk and pin it all on the rich kid as well, which is a good question, in my opinion. I suppose it could be that the poor kid knows that the evidence will not back up his story.

And the final response (to date) was one where an entirely new scenario was presented in which the rich kid kills everyone who doesn't give him shoes, and that most of his shoes were already stolen to begin with. I find this to be so far outside of the scenario as to reinforce the idea that without adding additional elements to the original scenario, there is no other way to make it seem as if naturally the rich kid had the stronger motive of the two.

BBM - Can you provide a link please? I think common sense applies here, not general data. Just because 'Thrill kills' are highly contested by scientists in general, doesn't mean it wasn't part of the motive in this case, LB's or WM's.

MK also admitted he did did not know what a "thrill kill" was so HTH clarify that. Remember, this was very early on in the case. Certainly more evidence was gathered to explain the motive. We'll have to wait about a year before the evidence is presented to show motive. In the meantime, look at the big picture. Does it really matter whether it was a "thrill kill" considering TB was murdered and incinerated and DM and MS are still facing murder charges? MOO.

But the lead investigator in the case denied that police were looking at the possibility the homicide may have been just for a thrill.
“I don’t know the motive for this,” Det. Sgt. Matt Kavanagh said Thursday. “I don’t even know what thrill kill means. It’s not been discussed. Where it’s coming from, I don’t know.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2..._man_was_killed_inside_truck_source_says.html

[U]Police are now considering a “thrill kill” as a possible motive for the mysterious slaying of Tim Bosma.[/U]

“It is seriously being looked at,” said one police source. “There is a theory that it was about stealing a truck but also hurting somebody.”

Stealing the truck is definitely also part of it.

“There was an obsession over that truck,” the copper said. “But there is potentially more since it could have easily been stolen anywhere.”

Instead, there was a staged event.

“Twisted would be the word,” an officer said.

http://www.lfpress.com/2013/05/16/tim-bosmas-murder-may-have-been-thrill-kill-source

 

[Alethea Dice]

The hotmail account was simply referenced by another - there is no proof anyone else ever used it.

If someone was impersonating DM using his Steam account, his hotmail account, his phone, his burner phone, his Yukon, his calls from the Etobicoke area, his hanger, his incinerator and his rural property...don't you think there would be enough evidence to uncover who DM's absolute every minute doppelganger was?

Just because some links are off limits here doesn't mean they don't exist.

When someone uses another's gaming account, it doesn't mean they are necessarily impersonating them. Some share to gain progress in the game.

If it has been determined who bought the burner phone, it has not yet been released to the public that I am aware of. Any of the LE conferences only stated that it was purchased by "one of the accused". It's become apparent that he wasn't the only one spending a lot of time in the Etobicoke area.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Anyway, if the poor kid is framing, using and abusing the rich kid, why is the poor kid keeping his mouth shut? Wouldn't he want to dump on the rich kid?



http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...y_they_want_to_tell_their_story_but_cant.html

There is still a loyalty between the two. DP was happy to talk of a "framing aspect" initially but DM doesn't have seem to have turned on MS either.

How can you be so sure he isn't?

 

[Alethea Dice]

Check out Nietzsche's ideas of will to power and master-slave morality, here are the Coles notes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_to_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master–slave_morality

I'd still like to see the proof that DM "trained" his buddies to call him Boss. IMO, most people would fall somewhere in between the master and the slave.

 

[Alethea Dice]

The victims of a thrill killer are generally strangers, although the killer may stalk them for a period of time before the attack in order to fuel the excitement of the hunt.

thrill killers derive intense satisfaction from the process of murder—that is, the acts leading up to it—rather than the killing itself. They come to crave the euphoric adrenaline rush provided by stalking and capturing their victims.

Once the victim is dead, a thrill killer typically loses interest in him/her almost immediately. Therefore, postmortem mutilation or necrophilia is rarely engaged in by this type of serial killer.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201401/killing-just-the-thrill-it-all

Hamilton police believe Tim Bosma, 32, was killed on May 6, soon after leaving his Ancaster house with two men for a test drive of his pickup truck.

Doesn't sound like there was much time for the "thrill" part.

 

[ABro]

Thank you all for your opinions on my hypothetical question. I found the responses to be very interesting, in my opinion. Here is the data I have extrapolated from it:

One response supplied an alternative motive outside of that given by the police (shoes) in the example, that of a thrill kill. The existence of the 'Thrill kill' as a motive is highly contested by scientists in general. In this case specifically, Detective Carbone said that it was not the motive, if I recall correctly.

I find it interesting that you quote Detective Carbone (wrongly, as Swedie points out) as an authority, given that he's the guy who is in charge of the Laura Babcock and Wayne Millard murder investigations, and arrested <modsnip>, DM, for both those murders.

If your theory about DM being a wrongly prosecuted, innocent rich boy is correct, Det. Carbone would have to be one of the main villains or stooges involved in this miscarriage of justice.

Also, any link to scientists contesting the existence of thrill killers?

 

[matou]

"I don't even know what thrill kill means." LMAO Playing dumb or what? JMO

 

[matou]

The burner phone was purchased three months prior to the murder of Tim Bosma. So in February sometime. JMO Planning for some crazy chit?

 

[Sillybilly]

Also, any link to scientists contesting the existence of thrill killers?

<rsbm>

Yeah .. I was kinda wondering if maybe peeps like Margie Keaton, PsyD and Dr. Erica Hutton should start looking for jobs in another field

from:
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/local-news/expert-fishers-slaying-was-textbook-thrill-kill

A forensic psychology expert has weighed in on the Nov. 1 killing of a 73-year-old Fishers man and says the case was a "textbook thrill kill."

from:
http://ericahutton.blogspot.ca/2013/06/an-assessment-of-thrill-killing.html

The typical person that commits a thrill kill is going to be a male with a history of anger management issues, disorderly conduct, and an abrasive demeanor that they are good at hiding from others to reduce the level of judgment that may ensure if people around them knew their “real” identity. I have seen females commit thrill kills, but it is not as prevalent as having a male commit such crimes. In regards to what triggers such behavior, it is really a matter of fragmented reality. This does not mean that they are insane or mentally ill, suffering from some form of psychopathology but rather in their reality, they deserve respect, attention, special treatment, and they predict how individuals should treat them and react towards them. When these aspects do not meet the standards of their expectations, they react in rage and it is this rage that can lead to them killing an individual. In regards to the specifics that trigger this behavior; it is rather subjective and will depend upon the perpetrator. Thrill killers are typically going to be Caucasian males that have slight sociopathic tendencies; they are not full blown psychopaths though. Additionally, if given the opportunity, they would love to be a psychopath and more often than not, they privately fantasize about such notions.

 

[Sillybilly]

"I don't even know what thrill kill means." LMAO Playing dumb or what? JMO

We should have invited him to join WS a few years back