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

[swedie]

Looking back on MR's case and the overwhelming amount of solid, direct and circumstantial evidence the Crown had on proving his guilt, it's very obvious why they did apply for this move. I believe by asking for direct indictment in this case speaks volumes as to the charges applied to all three accused. My first impression when I read this is LE have an enormous amount of direct evidence to nail the three accused to the wall. After all, preliminary hearings are held to show the Crown has sufficient evidence to proceed onto trial. In this case it's seems apparent they believe they have more than what may be required, so why waste all that time, money and burden witnesses and loved ones when it's not necessary, the evidence will speak for itself. Obviously a preliminary hearing is not a right afforded to the accused.

This move/request by the Crown has given me a whole new sense that justice will be served for the victims and their loved ones. JMO.

AD I'm not so sure we are going to see five different trial or even three. I assume the Crown is going to roll everything into one big trial with charges and verdicts rendered separately of the three accused. Remember the Banditos trial? MOO.

Direct indictments are rare in Canada. A recent example of a direct indictment is the case of Michael Rafferty, who was convicted in the kidnapping murder of eight-year-old Tori Stafford of Woodstock.

Direct indictment decisions are made unilaterally by the prosecutors and the defense has no ability to argue against it.

Under federal guidelines, direct indictments are permitted, among other factors, to avoid multiple proceedings, to protect the safety of witnesses and their families, or “where the age, health or other circumstances relating to witnesses requires their evidence to be presented before the trial court as soon as possible.”

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...ial-of-bosma-suspects-millard-smich-1.2682095

Usually an often lengthy preliminary hearing is conducted for a judge to determine if there is enough evidence to proceed further.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/20/a-direct-indictment-would-be-welcome-news-for-tim-bosmas-family

 

[Alethea Dice]

Snipped by me for relevance -

Kindly confirm, if possible, that Ontario Courts routinely allow the proceedings of a preliminary hearing for a murder charge to be published.

A quick scan of Ontario Government and Ontario Bar Association sites advise a publication ban of preliminary hearings is routine in order to avoid tainting the jury pool at time of trial, and to protect the rights of the accused.
No mention of the victim(s) or their family that I noticed, but could have missed that.

The same sites advise that the accused can waive the right to a preliminary hearing as well if they choose - seems to me a two way street is fair on that point.

That's correct. There is generally a publication ban routinely put on preliminary hearings, as well as on bail hearings for the same reason. Just as there routinely is a preliminary hearing. Which makes the second point given by the professor in that article a moot point.

It is also used when it “would be injurious to the public interest” to hear horrible details of a crime more than is necessary

The public would not hear the details more than once if there was a publication ban in place. I suppose there could be a greater risk of the publication ban being breached since the public would still be allowed to attend.

My guess is that it would be even more rare for an accused to waive their right to a preliminary hearing that it is for the Crown to request it.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

Looking back on MR's case and the overwhelming amount of solid, direct and circumstantial evidence the Crown had on proving his guilt, it's very obvious why they did apply for this move. I believe by asking for direct indictment in this case speaks volumes as to the charges applied to all three accused. My first impression when I read this is LE have an enormous amount of direct evidence to nail the three accused to the wall. After all, preliminary hearings are held to show the Crown has sufficient evidence to proceed onto trial. In this case it's seems apparent they believe they have more than what may be required, so why waste all that time, money and burden witnesses and loved ones when it's not necessary, the evidence will speak for itself. Obviously a preliminary hearing is not a right afforded to the accused.

This move/request by the Crown has given me a whole new sense that justice will be served for the victims and their loved ones. JMO.

AD I'm not so sure we are going to see five different trial or even three. I assume the Crown is going to roll everything into one big trial with charges and verdicts rendered separately of the three accused. Remember the Banditos trial? MOO.

Direct indictments are rare in Canada. A recent example of a direct indictment is the case of Michael Rafferty, who was convicted in the kidnapping murder of eight-year-old Tori Stafford of Woodstock.

Direct indictment decisions are made unilaterally by the prosecutors and the defense has no ability to argue against it.

Under federal guidelines, direct indictments are permitted, among other factors, to avoid multiple proceedings, to protect the safety of witnesses and their families, or “where the age, health or other circumstances relating to witnesses requires their evidence to be presented before the trial court as soon as possible.”

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...ial-of-bosma-suspects-millard-smich-1.2682095

Usually an often lengthy preliminary hearing is conducted for a judge to determine if there is enough evidence to proceed further.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/20/a-direct-indictment-would-be-welcome-news-for-tim-bosmas-family

An accused has a right to a preliminary hearing under the Criminal Code. It's just not guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The difference in the Bandidos trial is that the murders all took place on the same day, in the same place, and by the same people. I can't imagine that WM's case would be heard at the same time, since only one person is charged with that crime. I also would be surprised to see the sale of the illegal weapon charge being dealt with in the same trial since that person is not even charged with any of the murders. Likewise, CN is only charged in connection with one of the crimes. My opinion is that each will have their own trial since they are all separate occurrences.

The difference with Michael Rafferty's trial is that it had already been three years after the date of Tori's death and one of the accused had already confessed.

JMO

 

[Snoofo]

Pardon my ignorance: What more evidence would be produced at the prelim hearing that has not already been part of the ongoing disclosure provided by the prosecution to the defence?

Sent using Tapatalk 2

 

[hopingforjustice]

Pardon my ignorance: What more evidence would be produced at the prelim hearing that has not already been part of the ongoing disclosure provided by the prosecution to the defence?

Sent using Tapatalk 2

I asked that same question some time ago. I felt the same way. I will try to find the responses.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Pardon my ignorance: What more evidence would be produced at the prelim hearing that has not already been part of the ongoing disclosure provided by the prosecution to the defence?

Sent using Tapatalk 2

The preliminary hearing is like a mini trial. Evidence is presented and witnesses are called. It shows the defense the Crown's case - not only what the evidence is, but how it will be used. They do already have disclosure, but no background on what each piece of evidence means, or which pieces will be used and what it shows. They find out who the witnesses are and can determine how reliable or credible they might be. If their statements change at the actual trial, their credibility can be questioned.

The burden of proof is much lower at a preliminary trial. The Crown only has to show probable cause for the case to go to trial, not beyond reasonable doubt. This can be when charges are dismissed or reduced if evidence is lacking or witnesses are unreliable. (Not that I think it would happen in this case.)

http://info.lawyershop.ca/archives/2009/06/12/the-purpose-of-a-preliminary-inquiry/

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-difference-between-preliminary-hearing-trial.html

JMO

 

[Carli]

Snipped by me for relevance -

Kindly confirm, if possible, that Ontario Courts routinely allow the proceedings of a preliminary hearing for a murder charge to be published.

A quick scan of Ontario Government and Ontario Bar Association sites advise a publication ban of preliminary hearings is routine in order to avoid tainting the jury pool at time of trial, and to protect the rights of the accused.
No mention of the victim(s) or their family that I noticed, but could have missed that.

The same sites advise that the accused can waive the right to a preliminary hearing as well if they choose - seems to me a two way street is fair on that point.

Hi, Woodland. I was just quoting the cited article at http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/06/20/tim_bosma_murder_crown_applies_to_take_case_right_to_trial.html

Specifically "From a Crown’s standpoint, going straight to trial can speed up the judicial process, reduce violations of publication bans, spare witnesses from testifying twice and the victim’s family from going through two lengthy hearings, and keep the defence from knowing the Crown’s strategy."

Frankly I can't imagine why any accused would voluntarily choose to skip the Preliminary Hearing stage of normal due process. Then again I'm not entirely sure how long any person can tolerate solitary confinement without losing rational capacity. Days? Weeks? Months? Perhaps in such a circumstance an accused could be expected to do or say anything in an attempt to shorten the period of such extreme confinement.

I'd like to quickly add that I'm very loathe to add my own sleuthed notes or opinions here (such as the one just expressed) because there seems to be a widely held view that LE and the Press are invincible when it comes to a determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused. To posit otherwise is to have one's objectivity challenged, to be discredited as being either related in some way to parties to the crime(s) at hand or to somehow favour or ferment murder and mayhem by even suggesting that LE is capable of ever making mistakes. IMO, however, the willingness to challenge authority at every single step and the willingness to cooly and without prejudice examine events from every possible angle, however unpopular, lies at the very heart of effective sleuthing - at least IMHO.

Being decent people with the hopeful expectation that we may behave decently in our relationships with each other, we may dislike, even despise the accused. We may disapprove of their looks, their friends, their dress, their attitudes and (emphatically yes) their tattoos. We may be disgusted by their idleness, their apparent recklessness, but nevertheless until guilt for their crimes is proven in a court of law to the satisfaction of a jury of their peers, they remain absolutely innocent. Peers. By extension, that's us. To lose sight of that fact is to deny all rights under the law, including those of each and every single one of us here. It is the court - us - we are the ones who provide a balanced arena in which prosecution and defense can present their cases for and against the accused and it will take however long it takes.

Tim Bosma, Wayne Millard, Laura Babcock - these tragic figures are all of us. But so are Dellen Millard, Mark Smich and Christine Noudga. Together we share an equal duty to every single one of these individuals, victims and accused, to insure, to the absolute best of our abilities, that accuracy in justice prevails.

If, for no other reason, we owe that to ourselves. It is, after all, the basis for our freedom.

IMHO, IMHO, IMHO.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2014/06/20140620-192133.html

Crown seeks to fast-track trial for Tim Bosma’s accused killers

"Usually an often lengthy preliminary hearing is conducted for a judge to determine if there is enough evidence to proceed further. The advantage for the defence is that the Crown must show its hand and outline its case and key witnesses at a prelim - offering the accused a head start in constructing their own strategy."

Otherwise not. Is it fair enough?

 

[Sillybilly]

Otherwise not. Is it fair enough?[/...y General to argue against direct indictment.

 

[swedie]

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2014/06/20140620-192133.html

Crown seeks to fast-track trial for Tim Bosma’s accused killers

"Usually an often lengthy preliminary hearing is conducted for a judge to determine if there is enough evidence to proceed further. The advantage for the defence is that the Crown must show its hand and outline its case and key witnesses at a prelim - offering the accused a head start in constructing their own strategy."

Otherwise not. Is it fair enough?

I say fair and that's JMO. It is what it is and if the accused are not guilty, the defense shouldn't have to know how the Crown presents its case. All they have to do is prove the accused innocence. Yes I realize it's NOT up to the defense to prove the accused innocence but yes in reality it is. The Crown will present its evidence and it's up to the defense to quash that evidence if possibly. With or without a PH, again, regardless the evidence will speak for itself no matter how it is presented.

 

[swedie]

<rsbm>

The defence is allowed to make its own submissions to the Attorney General to argue against direct indictment.

Direct indictment decisions are made unilaterally by the prosecutors and the defence has no ability to argue against it.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...ial-of-bosma-suspects-millard-smich-1.2682095

 

[Carli]

<rsbm>

The defence is allowed to make its own submissions to the Attorney General to argue against direct indictment.

Sorry, but as I understand it, that statement is absolutely 100 percent untrue. What you are actually describing is, at its core, the Preliminary Hearing, except that the decision maker at a Preliminary Hearing is an actual sitting Judge, not a political appointee who is chosen by the premier and appointed by the lieutenant-governor.

 

[Carli]

Snipped by me for relevance -

Kindly confirm, if possible, that Ontario Courts routinely allow the proceedings of a preliminary hearing for a murder charge to be published.

A quick scan of Ontario Government and Ontario Bar Association sites advise a publication ban of preliminary hearings is routine in order to avoid tainting the jury pool at time of trial, and to protect the rights of the accused.
No mention of the victim(s) or their family that I noticed, but could have missed that.

The same sites advise that the accused can waive the right to a preliminary hearing as well if they choose - seems to me a two way street is fair on that point.

Sorry. I inadvertently established confusion. I should have written "Given the realistic presentation of grisly murders on TV crime dramas, not to mention the real life carnage we're subjected to on every evening's newscasts, does anybody really think that the details of a murder presented at a Preliminary Hearing, even if publication bans are breached, are too much for the public to bear?" IMO.

While it is a rather charmingly sweet belief in the basic goodness of people to think that the innocence of someone charged with a crime will be abundantly evident because... well... because they're innocent; that false evidence will be immediately identifiable as such because... well... because it's false; that police never make mistakes; that witnesses are reliable and without hidden agendas; that all lawyers are outstandingly capable when defending their clients because... well... because they're lawyers; that the law is not an because... well... because it isn't.

The only thing is, none of the above is true. Thankfully, it's usually true but there are many, many terrible exceptions, aren't there? IMO. Even more thankfully, at least we don't have the death penalty to compound failures in justice for those mistakenly judged to be guilty of murder.

As I understand it, if you are charged with a crime, you are entitled to know a) exactly what the charge is and b) exactly what evidence has led to the conclusion of your guilt. You are entitled to employ every available means to prove your innocence. How will you do this if the prosecutor's evidence is withheld and suddenly sprung upon you at trial. The scales of Lady Justice are equally balanced and moreover she is blindfolded to prevent prejudice (including the public's cry for revenge) from affecting her decision. IMO. IMHO.

 

[Woodland]

Someone else already clarified the original question Carli - that prelim hearings and public knowledge of them rarely, if ever, go hand in hand in Canada.

Not questioning any opinions or views on other topics.

 

[Carli]

Part V PROCEEDINGS AT TRIAL AND ON APPEAL Chapter 15

15.3.1 Sufficiency of the Evidence

In the assessment of the evidence, a bare prima facie case is not enough; the evidence must demonstrate that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction. This decision requires an evaluation of how strong the case is likely to be when presented at trial. This evaluation should be made on the assumption that the trier of fact will act impartially and according to law.

A proper assessment of the evidence will take into account such matters as the availability, competence and credibility of witnesses and their likely impression on the trier of fact, as well as the admissibility of evidence implicating the accused.

Crown counsel should also consider any defences that are plainly open to or have been indicated by the accused, and any other factors which could affect the prospect of a conviction; for example, the existence of a Charter violation that will undoubtedly lead to the exclusion of evidence essential to sustain a conviction. Crown counsel must also zealously guard against the possibility that they have been afflicted by “tunnel vision,” through close contact with the investigative agency, colleagues or victims, such that the assessment is insufficiently rigorous and objective.

This evidential standard must be applied throughout the proceedings – from the time the investigative report is first received until the time of trial.

When charges are laid, the test may have to be applied primarily against the investigative report, although it is certainly preferable – especially in borderline cases -- to look beyond the statements of the witnesses.

Later in the proceedings, especially after a preliminary inquiry, counsel may be able to make a more effective assessment of some of the issues, such as the credibility of witnesses. Assessments of the strength of the case may be difficult to make, and of course there can never be an assurance that a prosecution will succeed.

Nonetheless, counsel are expected to review the decision to prosecute in light of emerging developments affecting the quality of the evidence and the public interest, and to be satisfied at each stage, on the basis of the available material, that there continues to be a reasonable prospect of conviction.

http://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/fpd/ch15.html

Prevention of miscarriages of justice is an interesting topic and has been covered extensively by a Prosecutions Committee tasked with creating a report and recommendations on the subject.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/ccr-rc/pmj-pej/toc-tdm.html

In the case(s) at hand I am somewhat curious about why LE and prosecution has established close personal interaction with one victim's family (TB) but have reportedly had very little if any, contact with the other two victim's families (WM) and (LB).

The subject of "Tunnel Vision" is more fully examined in the above report:

Tunnel vision has been defined as “the single minded and overly narrow focus on an investigation or prosecutorial theory so as to unreasonably colour the evaluation of information received and one’s conduct in response to the information.”[114] Tunnel vision, and its perverse by-product “noble cause corruption,”[115] are the antithesis of the proper roles of the police and Crown Attorney. Yet tunnel vision has been identified as a leading cause of wrongful convictions in Canada and elsewhere.

MORE AT

http://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/fpd/ch15.html

This not for a moment to suggest that "Tunnel Vision" may be playing any role whatsoever in assigning serious crimes to these particular perpetrators but only to point out that there is much more to the matter of "reasonable likelihood of obtaining a conviction" than just the confident determination of LE and Prosecutors.

 

[swedie]

Sorry. I inadvertently established confusion. I should have written "Given the realistic presentation of grisly murders on TV crime dramas, not to mention the real life carnage we're subjected to on every evening's newscasts, does anybody really think that the details of a murder presented at a Preliminary Hearing, even if publication bans are breached, are too much for the public to bear?" IMO.

While it is a rather charmingly sweet belief in the basic goodness of people to think that the innocence of someone charged with a crime will be abundantly evident because... well... because they're innocent; that false evidence will be immediately identifiable as such because... well... because it's false; that police never make mistakes; that witnesses are reliable and without hidden agendas; that all lawyers are outstandingly capable when defending their clients because... well... because they're lawyers; that the law is not an because... well... because it isn't.

The only thing is, none of the above is true. Thankfully, it's usually true but there are many, many terrible exceptions, aren't there? IMO. Even more thankfully, at least we don't have the death penalty to compound failures in justice for those mistakenly judged to be guilty of murder.

As I understand it, if you are charged with a crime, you are entitled to know a) exactly what the charge is and b) exactly what evidence has led to the conclusion of your guilt. You are entitled to employ every available means to prove your innocence. How will you do this if the prosecutor's evidence is withheld and suddenly sprung upon you at trial. The scales of Lady Justice are equally balanced and moreover she is blindfolded to prevent prejudice (including the public's cry for revenge) from affecting her decision. IMO. IMHO.

The accused know exactly what they are being charged with and the defense along with the accused do and will get their disclosure. The Crown is fully aware of the penalties/risks they face if full disclosure isn't presented to the defense prior to the trial. Read the attached link for all pertinent information if you please. The only advantages to the PH is that the defense gets to see how the Crown is going to present their case, therefore the defense can "strategize". IMO this is not a game; three innocent peoples' lives were taken so brutally and intentionally. There is no need to strategize as again, the evidence will speak for itself. It seems pretty apparent the Crown in this case believes by preponderance of the evidence they have a slam dunk case.

Also, the accused will be entitled to writing materials during the trial and at anytime they do not agree with what the Crown is presenting, if the presentation is inaccurate or false, they are fully capable of taking notes and sharing that information with their lawyer to right the wrong. Most importantly the accused has their right to take the stand in their own defense regardless of what their defense suggests, and if they chose not to, that is totally up to them if they give up the right. There is nothing underhandedly being done by the Crown when it requests to eliminate the PH. No ones' rights are being violated by bypassing the PH (or this move would not be allowed period) and everyone has the right to a speedy trial including the victims. Not to forget the taxpayers who may be footing the hefty bills incurred to carry out these investigations and trials. MOO.

The Crown must disclose all materials information that is in its possession or control that is not clearly irrelevant, regardless of if the evidence is to be called at trial or is inculpatory or exculpatory.[1]

The right to disclosure is founded in the principle of fair play between parties[2] as well as the right to make full answer and defence.[3]

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Procedure_and_Practice/Disclosure

 

[swedie]

I have to wonder if those over 10,000 video files are just from business and public video surveillance or if they also include personal computers and other electronic devices with the ability to record video.

The investigation into the disappearance of Ancaster&#8217;s Tim Bosma brought in over 10,000 video files just on that one case.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/why-is-security-camera-video-still-so-terrible-1.2542359

Police are still looking for at least one other person, as a dark blue GMC Yukon belonging to Millard was seen on video following Bosma's truck as he left his home on the test drive on May 6.

The worker said Hamilton Police detectives had come by to pick up surveillance video from the house next door on Saturday.

http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/678720/neighbours-say-they-want-to-console-millards-mother/

Police have found Bosma's cellphone and what they believe to be the truck he was last seen in and have received over 500 tips from the public. But there's still no sign of the young husband and father.

Now, police tell CBC News they are looking for video surveillance from homes on Tinsmith Court, the street where the trailer was found.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...pearance-staying-silent-lawyer-says-1.1330722

 

[Alethea Dice]

[/B]

The only advantages to the PH is that the defense gets to see how the Crown is going to present their case, therefore the defense can "strategize". IMO this is not a game; three innocent peoples' lives were taken so brutally and intentionally. There is no need to strategize as again, the evidence will speak for itself. It seems pretty apparent the Crown in this case believes by preponderance of the evidence they have a slam dunk case.

<rsbm>

That's not technically true. It is an advantage to the defense to see the Crown's strategy, but it's a two way street. The Crown can also see some of the defense's strategy. To "strategize" is to make a plan for achieving a goal. The Crown strategizes when they decide how and in what order to present the evidence in the best way that will lead to the conclusion of what they think happened. The Defense strategizes to show how that evidence may mean something other than what's been presented. It happens on both sides in every trial.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

I have to wonder if those over 10,000 video files are just from business and public video surveillance or if they also include personal computers and other electronic devices with the ability to record video.

<rsbm>

I also wonder how many of those over 10,000 video files had something usable on them.

JMO

 

[Sphinx]

<rsbm>

I also wonder how many of those over 10,000 video files had something usable on them.

JMO

Perhaps with all the video enhancement technology available today to LE, they were able to identify, or come close to identifying the driver of the blue Yukon truck following Tim Bosma, when he left home on the test drive. It might very well be CN. Did she see the murder, or see them moving the body around in Tim's truck ? Was she aware it happened ? This might make her an accomplice, to murder, in the first degree, who helped DM, and perhaps MS escape. It looks like she is in very deep. I doubt that she just got rid of a cell phone for them, without knowing what happened. She may end up going to prison for a very long time, along with DM and MS.

Good question about how much other useful information LE found on those 10,000 video tapes -- probably lots of surprises to be revealed in the trial. The three victims and their families deserve justice, and it looks like there is a good chance justice will be served.