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

[Snoofo]

It's tough to make those types of changes in the judicial system. I can only imagine the people who could best advocate for those changes are the same ones that actually benefit from such delay$.

 

[MsSherlock]

It's tough to make those types of changes in the judicial system. I can only imagine the people who could best advocate for those changes are the same ones that actually benefit from such delay$.

So true Snoofo. IMHO, the people who may be feeling most injured by the lack of a preliminary hearing are the lawyers. This preliminary hearing was suppose to last 8 weeks. IMHO, that's a lot of billable hours.:scared: MOO

http://www.hamiltonnews.com/news/preliminary-hearing-dates-set-in-bosma-murder-case/

 

[Alethea Dice]

It's tough to make those types of changes in the judicial system. I can only imagine the people who could best advocate for those changes are the same ones that actually benefit from such delay$.

Too true. Although I imagine that the lawyers would still bill for the time spent using a court counter, or remote scheduling, or e-mails/phone calls. Five minutes is five minutes, whether you're in the courtroom or on the computer/phone.

JMO

 

[Snoofo]

It is, but add the travel time and mileage, it could turn a 5 minute phone call into a profitable 3 hour affair. If DP from Brampton attends at University Avenue in downtown Toronto for 5 minutes that could take half his day, especially during rush hour. It is much more profitable to attend than make a 5 minute phone call. Then again, for the defence attorney that is very busy, this must be a huge drag, but I suppose this is where they might send juniors or students in their stead and still charge a decent amount. JMO!

 

[Carli]

And also this paragraph from your previous post, snipped by me as I haven't figured out or tried to figure out how to do multiple quotes. :blushing:

Snipped from AletheaDice's post #909.
We don't know what or if TLM cut a deal. What we do know is that the abduction and forcible confinement charges seemed to disappear and she increased her chances of getting out in 15 years under the Faint Hope Clause. If she did have a deal, I guess she reneged on it since she didn't testify to what was in her Agreed Statement of Facts.

Yes the Crown did not divulge their reason for withdrawing the other charge but it could not have been for reneging as per your suggestion mentioned above. The Agreed Statement of Facts dated May 19, 2010, happened April 30, 2010, while the trial for MR started in March 2012. The Crown had already withdrawn the kidnapping charge almost two years prior. Hey if there was an agreement to drop the kidnapping charge prior to her confession, if that's what it took to get a confession and a guilty plea, IMO it was so worth it to spare an unnecessary trial, trauma to Tori's loved ones and all the nonsense which goes hand in hand with a not guilty plea. Respectfully, how do you figure that will increase her chance for the faint hope clause? Bottom line is, all the evidence will be before the parole board regardless, including the original charges and let's not forget any charges prior and thereafter. If society is lucky, the won't live long enough to apply for parole and that's JMHO. Maybe it's a good thing she's not in SC. Same with the other who sadly is sitting in protective custody, who instigated Tori's abduction, then raped and murdered her with the help of TLM. Same sentiments to whomever murdered TB, LB and WM. Society does not need these monsters in MOO.

On April 30, 2010, Terri Lynn McClintic pleaded guilty to first degree murder of Victoria Elizabeth Stafford on April 8, 2009 based on an Agreed Statement of Facts and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Counsel for the Crown and the offender agreed that there were several bases of criminal liability to support the plea of guilty to first degree murder but that the primary one was that Victoria Elizabeth Stafford's murder took place during the commission of the offence of kidnapping and forcible confinement as provided for by s. 231 (5) (e) of the Criminal Code. Because the offence carries a mandatory penalty, counsel made no submissions about the sentence and I gave no reasons other than to note that the sentence was mandatory. The Crown withdrew the charge of kidnapping.

http://adidem.org/images/8/87/R._v._McClintic.pdf

Sorry to be a buttinsky on the subject, but respecfully, could we please, please, please limit discussion here to the crime at hand - (mods help pls!) namely the untimely demise of TB, WM and LB? I have no idea about the process of the other trial mentioned, nor, frankly, the slightest interest in it. I guess it was horrible. Murders are. So, undoubtedly, as every single one of the plus or minus 170 homicides (2012 stats) carried out annually in Ontario alone. I really don't see what particular value ruminating about any or all those other murder might have on the DM and associates allegations. Also, this case is perplexing and bewildering enough, imo, without adding another layer of complexity through referencing a crime and a trial which are already concluded. IMO. IMHO.

 

[Carli]

By the way I've been meaning to ask.... does anyone know if there was a Coroner's Report with respect to the remains of TB? I don't recall reading or hearing anything about that here or in the MSM or elsewhere. I suppose, given the apparent circumstances of his death, there must have been an autopsy. But what were the results?

 

[Carli]

Uhm, trying to answer my own question here... the best I can come up with is a quote from Kavanaugh May 14, 2013 and published in the Spec at
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2875368-timothy-bosma-found-dead/

"This is now a homicide investigation," Kavanagh said.

"I believe Mr. Bosma died shortly after he was abducted."

The coroner's office and the Centre of Forensic Science is assisting, Kavanagh told a press conference.

"The cause of death comes from the expertise that comes from the coroner's office," Kavanagh said., noting that the exact cause of death will not be known until that examination is complete.

But those were early days. Anything more on that essential Coroner's Report since then?

 

[andreww]

By the way I've been meaning to ask.... does anyone know if there was a Coroner's Report with respect to the remains of TB? I don't recall reading or hearing anything about that here or in the MSM or elsewhere. I suppose, given the apparent circumstances of his death, there must have been an autopsy. But what were the results?

Wasn't he incinerated? Not sure there would be enough left to do an autopsy on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Carli]

Wasn't he incinerated? Not sure there would be enough left to do an autopsy on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are lots of reports about LE seizing the incinerator - which, incidentally, is a model well sleuthed on these pages as having the capacity to incinerate small (hopefully) dead animals and brush. To stuff a whole person down the relatively small shute would require a good deal of dismemberment etc. None of the accused have been charged, so far as I know, with indignity to a dead body etc. etc. There were many reports, at the time, that the police had removed the incinerator from the property but, to my knowledge, no followup confirming it was used in the crime(s). There was also a later report that more ashes had been found at the farm than could be attributed to the 5 pounds are so each of us can produce, but forensics were attempting to determine if these remains were human or those of animals. Then, later still, as we know, police combed through the barn and adjacent farm property but later reported they'd found nothing related to the disappearance of LB. (Whether they may have found other evidence related to the other crime(s), wasn't mentioned.) Anyway, it all comes back to the Coroner's reports. We were originally told that poor TB's "unidentifiable" remains were found at the farm. Some reporters referred to "charred remains". Nonetheless, sadly, his body was identified within hours. In either case, given the prompt identification, the Coroner must have had something to go on and, given LE's confidence that a murder had occurred, an autopsy must have been conducted. I'm just incredibly surprised that MSM hasn't been all over this, but maybe I missed something along the way?

Why does any of this matter? Well, the fact is, that murder convictions without evidence of a dead body are exceedingly rare. When they do take place, it's often because of circumstantial or heresay evidence - easy enough for any competent lawyer to overcome. In DM's case, at this point, we seem to be missing not just one murdered body, but three of them. I wonder how the extraordinarily clever sleuths here respond to that challenge?

At the risk of ignoring my own wish that everybody would stay only with the case at hand, WIKI, as usual, has some interesting background on the missing victims subject at [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_conviction_without_a_body"]Murder conviction without a body - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

In particular, I note the case cited ....

The possibility of the supposed victim turning up alive remains. In 2003, Leonard Fraser, having allegedly confessed to the murder of teenager Natasha Ryan, was on trial for this, and other murders, when she reappeared after having been missing for four years.

 

[Sillybilly]

Sorry to be a buttinsky on the subject, but respecfully, could we please, please, please limit discussion here to the crime at hand - (mods help pls!) namely the untimely demise of TB, WM and LB? I have no idea about the process of the other trial mentioned, nor, frankly, the slightest interest in it. I guess it was horrible. Murders are. So, undoubtedly, as every single one of the plus or minus 170 homicides (2012 stats) carried out annually in Ontario alone. I really don't see what particular value ruminating about any or all those other murder might have on the DM and associates allegations. Also, this case is perplexing and bewildering enough, imo, without adding another layer of complexity through referencing a crime and a trial which are already concluded. IMO. IMHO.

Referring to other cases is legal precedent .. many of us here were on the Tori Stafford thread for the duration, so can recognize the legal similarities swedie is referring to.

PS: If you have a problem with how the thread is going, please use the alert feature or notify a Mod directly through PM. We don't try to moderate the board ourselves or chastise other members on the board for how they post

 

[Carli]

Referring to other cases is legal precedent .. many of us here were on the Tori Stafford thread for the duration, so can recognize the legal similarities swedie is referring to.

PS: If you have a problem with how the thread is going, please use the alert feature or notify a Mod directly through PM. We don't try to moderate the board ourselves or chastise other members on the board for how they post

Wow. Well I have neither interest or intention to chastise anybody in presenting my own opinion. I certainly don't think we should be concerning ourselves with legal precedents here. Uhm. We're sleuthers, not lawyers. IMO. IMHO. While apparently another case was of interest to some posters here, I know very little about it other than, I gather, it involved the horrible brutalization and murder of a little girl. How this bears any similarity to THIS case I can't see other than, I dunno, several people were apparently involved in committing the crime or something? Maybe I'm missing some element? Whatever. Anyway, it is what it is. Didn't mean to knot anybody's knickers. Mods are doing a fine job without my intervention. IMO.

 

[Velma]

Sorry to be a buttinsky on the subject, but respecfully, could we please, please, please limit discussion here to the crime at hand - (mods help pls!) namely the untimely demise of TB, WM and LB? I have no idea about the process of the other trial mentioned, nor, frankly, the slightest interest in it. I guess it was horrible. Murders are. So, undoubtedly, as every single one of the plus or minus 170 homicides (2012 stats) carried out annually in Ontario alone. I really don't see what particular value ruminating about any or all those other murder might have on the DM and associates allegations. Also, this case is perplexing and bewildering enough, imo, without adding another layer of complexity through referencing a crime and a trial which are already concluded. IMO. IMHO.

I agree, Carli. I have been skipping over this stuff for days now. Mods, can it at the very least be moved to the Court Proceedings section?

 

[bessie]

When trying to understand the proceedings in one case, where apples = apples, I see no problem with an occasional comparison to another case, as long as the exchange doesn't run on and dominate the discussion.

I haven't seen any alerts reporting a problem of this nature, and I'm not going to rummage through the threads looking for the problem now. In the future, instead of complaining about it in the thread, if a member spots this kind of activity, my suggestion is to alert on it immediately so Coldpizza and I can review and make a decision. The posts will either be removed or allowed to stand.

 

[ArianeEmory]

I appreciate hearing how similar trials have been handled, especially considering my lack of knowledge of the Canadian justice system, and particularly since there isn't much other news in the case right now anyway. JMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Arnie M]

Here is a snip from a recent news article with good reasons for eliminating preliminary trials ....

I moved it to the court thread

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Court Appearances and Canadian Legal Terms

 

[swedie]

Sorry? Maybe you could re-read my posts and what I was responding to in my second one. No where did I suggest that a charge was withdrawn because she reneged on a deal. Not sure where that came from. Also, note from my post - she did not get a deal "for a reduced sentence". Impossible to have that included in any kind of deal since the sentence for murder is not negotiable - it is a mandatory life sentence. I'm not sure what you are referring to or mean by the "2 years earlier".

In any event, I apologize for getting involved in any discussion regarding that trial. I know it's been brought up many times, but I truly don't believe that it belongs here, in this case's discussion.

JMO

Respectfully and obviously you misunderstood my post. Regardless this is what you wrote and what I was responding to:

Snipped from AletheaDice's post #909.
We don't know what or if TLM cut a deal. What we do know is that the abduction and forcible confinement charges seemed to disappear and she increased her chances of getting out in 15 years under the Faint Hope Clause. If she did have a deal, I guess she reneged on it since she didn't testify to what was in her Agreed Statement of Facts.

I thought you were meaning she reneged on a deal during MR's trial. Therefore my explaination that IF a deal was made, it would have been made prior to her sentencing/court appearance April 30, 2010. Therefore how could the Crown drop the kidnapping and confinement charges if she reneged on her deal since she didn't testify to what was in her agreed statements of facts at MR's trial. The cat was out of the bag, the deal was done by the time MR had his trial almost two years later. HTH and if it's still not clear we'll let it slide as per your sentence: In any event, I apologize for getting involved in any discussion regarding that trial.

Snipped from your post:
If possible, could you please provide a link for the numerous reasons these 5 minute administrative appearances must be handled in court?

As I logically stated why I believe they are held in court and MOO. It stands to reason also that the victims loved ones have a right to know how the proceeding are being handled and moving along. HTH. And again MOO.

 

[swedie]

If possible, could you please provide a link for the numerous reasons these 5 minute administrative appearances must be handled in court?



More in the article about what other Provinces are doing to reduce time delays in taking a case to trial. I'm not sure why Ontario seems to be stuck in this "appearance based, paper based" system, but maybe it's time to learn a lesson from the other Provinces.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/09/courting-disaster-the-long-long-wait-for-justice-in-ontario/

JMO

For obvious reason, the PB, we are not privy as I've stated before, as to the details during these hearings. Therefore I hope this sheds light on the information you are seeking. HTH.

Pre-trial conferences may also be scheduled before the preliminary hearing or trial, in order to resolve some of the issues which may arise in the trial or preliminary hearing. Pre-trial conferences are presided over by the same judge who will be sitting at the trial.

http://www.victimsinfo.ca/en/about-court/interim-applications/interim-appearances

While disclosure is being obtained, the Court will order you or your lawyer to attend periodically, usually about every 4 weeks, and provide updates. Usually your lawyer will not hold a resolution meeting with the Crown until most or all of the disclosure is supplied.

http://www.canlaw.com/criminal/pretrial.htm#.U69eNPldWm4

 

[Alethea Dice]

For obvious reason, the PB, we are not privy as I've stated before, as to the details during these hearings. Therefore I hope this sheds light on the information you are seeking. HTH.

Pre-trial conferences may also be scheduled before the preliminary hearing or trial, in order to resolve some of the issues which may arise in the trial or preliminary hearing. Pre-trial conferences are presided over by the same judge who will be sitting at the trial.

http://www.victimsinfo.ca/en/about-court/interim-applications/interim-appearances

While disclosure is being obtained, the Court will order you or your lawyer to attend periodically, usually about every 4 weeks, and provide updates. Usually your lawyer will not hold a resolution meeting with the Crown until most or all of the disclosure is supplied.

http://www.canlaw.com/criminal/pretrial.htm#.U69eNPldWm4

Well, we do know that they are short administrative appearances, as it's been reported as such in MSM.

The frequent video appearances from jail for Dellen Millard and Mark Smich are part of administrative requirements leading up to a preliminary hearing set to start Sept. 8, with a trial expected after that.

http://www.caledonenterprise.com/news-story/4298046-bosma-murder-accused-back-in-court/

Both Millard and Smich will appear in Hamilton court for an administrative appearance on Dec. 11 via video.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/preliminary-hearing-for-bosma-murder-suspects-begins-sept-2014-1.2423708

From your second quote, I believe the key words are "while disclosure is being obtained". I would think all the disclosure had been given by November when they set the date for the preliminary trial. I would also think that, since the appearances are so short, that they have also finished with the pre-trial conferences. IMO, it is a waste of the court's time to have 5 minute administrative appearances. It's time that could be better spent using alternative methods and thus freeing up the court time to move these cases through to trial. If the court is tied up all day with 5 minute appearances, it can't very well have a trial on those days, can it. As per the link in my previous post, if they can do it in Alberta, I see no reason why it can't be done in Ontario.

We see cases in Ontario taking 3 years to go to trial. At what point does it infringe on a person's Charter Right to a speedy trial?

http://www.charterofrights.ca/en/16_00_02

JMO

 

[artemis17]

We were suppose to hear from attorney general on the 30th in regards to their decision on the direct indictment according to the one article but nothing so far =(

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[Carli]

We were suppose to hear from attorney general on the 30th in regards to their decision on the direct indictment according to the one article but nothing so far =(

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

I've been checking too, artemis. Kind of amazing, isn't it, that the press hasn't followed up on this?