That is to be profoundly hoped, IMO, not just in TB's case but in the charges relating to WM and LB as well. The extremely limited information we have seems to suggest that the primary evidence linking LB to DM is a series of unanswered phone calls and the witness testimony of an ex-boyfriend. In taking the case further, prosecutors will find themselves at odds with LE who may be expected to testify that they didn't think the girl's disappearance was particularly noteworthy (even though another of her ex-boyfriends had earlier been charged with assaulting her.) They will also have to come up with satisfactory evidence that, while her body (or any indications thereof) has not been found in Ontario, according to the Coroner (1) she is, in fact, dead (2) she was, in fact, murdered and (3) she was, in fact, murdered by DM in a deliberate and premeditated (collaborative) action (4) that she was, in fact, murdered by MS, in a deliberate and premeditated (collaborative) action.
In the case of the sudden death of WM, the prosecutors will first have to prove that the Coroner's original determination of suicide was inaccurate. In determining reasonable doubt in this case, I presume there will necessarily be considerable focus on the Coroner's original report and extensive examination and cross-examination on the subject. As I understand it, a finding of suicide vs homicide has to do with a thorough examination of the wound - the distance from the entry point that a bullet was discharged; the angle of entry suggesting the position of a hand holding a weapon; the condition of the victim's hand, including powder traces, incidental injury etc. and many, many, many more close measurements and professional observations. IMO, these may have to be re-jigged to arrive at the conclusion of murder, rather than suicide. Again, there is no intact body which could potentially be exhumed to clarify contentious issues, so one may expect a fairly lengthy parade of expert witnesses, I presume, all of whom may be placed in the awkward position of testifying that the Coroner made mistakes. Then, if that threshhold argument confirming murder, not suicide is crossed, prosecutors will have to provide convincing evidence that the death of WM was murder in the first degree as a result of a deliberate and premeditated act (not an unintentional act or an accident) and, finally, that WM's murder in the first degree was carried out by his son. IMO.
With respect to the death of TB, again we have very limited and closely held evidence. As with the other two investigations, prosecutors will first need to prove that (1) TB is dead and (2) TB died as a result of a murder in the first degree and (3) that murders in the first degree were carried out by DM and WS. Again, having surpassed those thresholds, essential prosecutorial elements appear to center on the eye witness testimony of the RBEG who described tattoos on the arm of a tall skinny guy with a short sleeved orange shirt and a little sidekick with a red hoodie, plus the eye witness testimony of SB who, one presumes probably did not see tattoos because by the time the two arrived at the Bosma place the following night, the little guy was still wearing his red riding hood and the tall skinny guy's orange shirt had long sleeves (or maybe shortened sleeves were rolled down.) The connecting item seems tenuous but appears to be a call, or calls to TB's cell phone from DM and, we presume, calls to the RBEG's cell phone from the same number. All that evidence is a minefield of assumptions and questionable conclusions, IMO, and will therefore occupy a mind boggling amount of court time, IMO.
It will be interesting to see how the court rules on admissible evidence in each of these cases. In particular, how much character testimony will be permitted. That could involve prohibition against testimony regarding either or both of Smich's and Millard's backgrounds. In Smich's case, such information could be somewhat damning, although relatively minor drug and grafitti spraying offenses seem a quantum leap from plotting and carrying out murders. In DM's case, with no previous police record, and various noteworthy achievements, character testimony could prove helpful in sowing doubt in the minds of jurors. However, IMO, much depends on the order in which these cases are tried and that order, I suggest, will be a construct based on the strength of the evidence in each of the cases. Obviously, for instance, if MS and DM are first found guilty of the first degree murder of LB, then jurors may be expected to believe them capable of a second murder (or third, in the case of DM). If, on the other hand, they are found to be not guilty, that verdict will likewise affect the willingness to accept their culpability in successive trials. IMO.
Having proven that DM and MS were the same persons as SB saw drive away the last time she saw her husband, there will be many more arguments at trial, most of which one presumes can be answered with testimony under oath about what exactly occurred on that test drive.
If you ask me, if the only essential elements surrounding these cases are those that have been so far reported by LE and the MSM, prosecutors have a fairly steep hill to climb in proving first degree murder in each of these cases and will definitely need to rely on all the professional and high tech tools available if they have any hope of conviction in any of these alleged crimes. MOO.
But if you want to talk OJ, IIRC a large majority of the people who followed OJ's case were pretty convinced he murder Nicole and Ron based the information that was in the MSM prior to his trial. Sure he was found not guilty (not innocent) of the two murders, but that doesn't mean he didn't murder them, just means the jurors were not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt he murdered them. With the newest sciences and technology we have nowadays, IMO that is going to play a huge role during the trial in TB's case. All MOO.
MOO.
