What is the purpose of all the questions about TB's business?
DM is accused of three murders. TB is a dead victim accused of nothing. There's a significant difference, and digging around in TB's background to make a comparison is out of bounds.
I think the purpose was explained in some detail, but I can't seem to find those posts now. It had something to do with the in depth examination of other victims (and other family members and friends) personal and professional lives as having potentially influenced DM's allegedly murderous actions. More importantly, in my view, the possibility that TB and DM's lives may have previously crossed in some way entirely unknown to TB but perhaps arising from his business endeavours. Perhaps somebody else has a clearer grasp of the issue. As I say, I can't find the earlier posts for reference. (Incidentally, apart from being very impressed by his financial achievements at such an early age, the only direct question I, for one, have posed about TB's affairs was a request for his business name. I'm not sure why that would be problematical, but that's ok, if it is an issue.)
HTH Carli.
Kavanaugh said Bosma had no connection to Millard and no criminal record. The image emerging of Bosma since his disappearance -- that of a devoted family man and devout Christian -- is true, he said.
"The picture being painted of Mr. Bosma is what we found in our investigation," he said.
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/05/14/police-update-tim-bosma-case
Respectfully, I'm not sure why you would omit to highlight the most relevant part of my sentence. ".... More importantly, in my view, the possibility that DB and DM's lives may have previously crossed in some way entirely unknown to TB but perhaps arising from his business endeavours.
I note the date of the Sun article was May 14 so it well may be that LE engaged in a forensic examination of TB and DM's businesses during the previous week in order to accurately conclude there was absolutely no previous association of any kind. But is that a reasonable assumption?
I'm not sure if some or any of these links might be useful but here are the names and URLS or other contact numbers for all the business listings situated at the Waterloo airport circa January 2013.
http://archive-ca.com/page/1138344/...rt.ca/en/abouttheairport/airportcommunity.asp
One observation (haven't had time to thoroughly browse) is that a few of the businesses do maintenance and repair. Was competition friendly?
Given that the MA MRO was built to service much larger airplanes than had ever landed at that airport, you would think they had their own niche there, as no one else there could handle planes as large as MA could.
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2...abusive-exploitive-and-a-risk-taker-profiler/In the obituary published last December, he referred to himself in the third person ("He is survived by his son Dellen Millard") and went on to claim his father "read and spoke five languages" and then listed the three figures Wayne Millard most admired: "Christ, Gandhi and Lindberg" — misspelling the name of Charles Lindbergh, one of the most famous aviators in history.
In the obituary, he refers to his dad as "Father": "For Father piloting wasn't just his job but his freedom … He was a man of vision. Yet To Be Realized."
Following the death of his grandfather, Dellen Millard posted on an aviators' chat forum when it appeared that commentators were suggesting Carl Millard had been a difficult man.
Millard again referenced himself in the third person ("Yes that was his grandson who soloed in fixed and rotary wing aircraft back in 99") and added in defence of his grandfather, "For those of you who knew him, thank you for your kind stories … for those who cast misjudgment so freely yet ignorantly, it's a shame, because you missed out."
Thrill kill motive?
James Van Allen, former head of the OPP's criminal profiling unit, believes whoever is responsible had murder in mind from the get-go.
Wha
"This could have been a standard carjacking: overpower him, leave him," said Van Allen, who heads the Behavioural Sciences Group in Langley, B.C.
"But we see a determination here to not be detected, to delay discovery or identification of the body. When Mr. Bosma went for the test drive, he was a marked man."
He added that the killer is someone who is exploitive, abusive, lacks any empathy and is a risk-taker.
The murder deviates from what is typically seen in the car theft racket, he said, where excessive violence is not the norm.
"This is too elaborate to steal one truck; to have these allegations of multiple people involved, multiple attempts to access a truck."
What doesn't add up, he said, is why anyone would murder for a truck. And "is the crime incongruent with the person charged?"
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2...abusive-exploitive-and-a-risk-taker-profiler/
It's great that a reporter noticed his weird obit for Wayne, referring to him as "Father", capital-F-Father-weird. And referring to himself in the third person, like he's a character in a story or something.
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2...abusive-exploitive-and-a-risk-taker-profiler/
I'm sorry, but to me, an article written in the earliest stages of the investigation, when no one had any idea what was going on, written by someone so completely removed from the scene as to be on the West Coast, who has absolutely no connection to the case, does nothing to validate an idea that the lead detective clearly and flatly denied.
If a "thrill kill" is the only possible motive that could fit in some people's opinions, then I think that the jury may have a hard time convicting on that when the defence calls in expert witnesses who refute the notion that it exists, or when they call Matt Kavanaugh to the stand and he repeats that he doesn't even know what that means.
Is there no other possible motive?
I'm sorry, but to me, an article written in the earliest stages of the investigation, when no one had any idea what was going on, written by someone so completely removed from the scene as to be on the West Coast, who has absolutely no connection to the case, does nothing to validate an idea that the lead detective clearly and flatly denied.
If a "thrill kill" is the only possible motive that could fit in some people's opinions, then I think that the jury may have a hard time convicting on that when the defence calls in expert witnesses who refute the notion that it exists, or when they call Matt Kavanaugh to the stand and he repeats that he doesn't even know what that means.
Is there no other possible motive?