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

[MsSherlock]

Carli, I believe that you may be right about "tunnel vision", however, one area that gets continually overlooked is exactly how the huge computer seizure related to this case may actually fit in. IMHO, proving that a person is dead beyond a reasonable doubt may not be that hard if the murder and/or disposal of the body has been captured digitally. We only need look back a couple of decades to see the sick, warped mind of PB, who had several video tapes of his crimes. What if every single crime the accused are charged with happens to be filmed? Would the evidence against PB have been different if he had a cell phone, iPad and a mirage of social media accounts?

LE at TB's funeral? Considering the exhausting search efforts and the prayers of a whole community, IMO, it was very respectful of HPS to attend the funeral and as far as digging into the victims extended family etc- I just can't bite on that one either. That would be like dissecting the victims families in the PB murders. Regardless if a person has emotional, financial or alcohol problems- their murder is just as criminal as the murder of a Saint.

LE have told us that there are 3 dead people who have all been tied to DM. A father, a lover and a random person who just happened to be found in or around an incinerator on DM's farm and LE has charged DM with 3 counts of First Degree murder. IMO, the publication ban that's been in place has worked and skipping over the preliminary trial will go a long way in ensuring that a jury will not be tainted, after all, MSM coverage on the case is almost non-existent these days, so chances are by the time DM goes to trial, selecting an unbiased jury won't be that hard.

 

[lclabtech]

Potential issues in the "direct indictment" approach.

http://www.calgary.ca/cps/Pages/Community-programs-and-resources/Crime-prevention/Missing-persons.aspx

I'm not sure we should expect the past president of the Criminal Trial Lawyers Association to say anything different than that.

 

[lclabtech]

Another point for discussion - just introduced by me on another thread, too - has to do with "tunnel vision".

See http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/TunnelVision_WEB.pdf

It can't have escaped anyone's notice that the memorial service for poor TB was televised nationally and, amazingly IMO, actually had LE members in attendance. How will LE justify such unusual association with a crime victim's family? Does LE have sufficient reliable and credible evidence to support its rush to judgement? Where will the jurors be found who have not been swayed by the local, national and international coverage of this tragedy? Given such extensive coverage, can a fair trial even be called. Moreover, is it possible that we may have a classic case of tunnel vision otherwise defined as "confirmation bias" on our hands? Well, we shall see. IMO. IMHO. OMO.

Interestingly, in the Calgary headline case, a good deal of effort has been devoted to dissecting the victim's financial and familiar affairs in an important effort to try to get to the bottom of what happened. Not so in this case. WS is thankfully, of course, victim friendly, but evidently there are degrees of what's permissible. Who knows if, for instance, any examination of TB's extended family, their finances and associations, could lead to important additional or important leads in the case. Just sayin'. Just askin' . IMO. IMHO. We know tons about the Millard dynasty; LB's emotional/psychological issues and absolutely nothing about the B family (except for those possibly critical issues uncovered by those who have taken time to sleuth.) IMO. IMHO. Horribly politically provocative I know, but facts are facts, and we don't get to the truth by skipping over them and pretending they don't matter. IMO. MOO. IMHO. And, just in case, let me add a new acronym "AMSOO" "Absolutely my sole opinion only".

Is LE attending a murder victim's funeral really all that unusual? It doesn't strike me as very unusual at all. I know several detectives in another area of the GTA and they've talked before about attending funerals in various cases they've overseen. A husband and father died under tragic circumstances. How does that affect DM getting a fair investigation/trial?

And I'm pretty close to the area where the trial will occur. Most people I talk to know very basic details of what happened (Oh right? That was that guy who disappeared after he tried to sell his truck right?) but absolutely nothing more than that - nothing about DM or the other crimes he's accused of. I don't think finding members of the jury will be an issue personally.

I also don't really understand you saying "rush to judgment". Even on the very, very basic details of the case that we have, it looks really really precarious for DM. I'm not sure how LE rushed to judgment when they have a witness of TB getting into a truck with these two individuals, never coming back, remains of TB on one of the accused party's properties, his truck on another of the accused party's properties. That's just the bare bones facts. What should LE have done?

 

[Alethea Dice]

Thanks for citing these interesting cases, but further examination clarifies that:

Mathieu-Read and Skolos murders both involved drug traffickers and money disputes among persons well-known to each other and already very well-known to the police. (Armed robbery, domestic disputes, prostitution, drug offenses, gang affiliations, etc.)

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2009/06/19/9850751-sun.html

http://www.thecourt.ca/2007/11/15/david-mostyn-pritchard-v-her-majesty-the-queen-statutory-interpretation-gone-wild/

Baby George Doodhnaught was not murdered nor were his parents ever so charged. (Such a sad case.) Their convictions arose from their failure to provide necessities of life and the disposal of the infant's body.
http://dematerialize5.rssing.com/chan-4042506/all_p24.html

The Elizabeth Bain conviction was a miscarriage of justice which, upon review, again raised the possibility that she had been a victim of Bernardo, with whom she was acquainted. That case is particularly interesting because Baltovich's prosecutors withheld essential evidence which, had it been provided to the defense or presented at trial, would probably have resulted in his acquittal - as, in fact, it did, many years later.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/lawsuit-uncovers-new-evidence-in-elizabeth-bain-murder-mystery/article17537594/

The Scullion case has not yet come to trial but, again, a drug dealer with gang connections has been charged. Whether there will be sufficient evidence to support the charges is still unknown.

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2014/03/10/charges-laid-in-2008-agassiz-murder/

Not to put too fine a point on it, but, respectfully, IMO, the fundamental questions are three-fold in any case where a lifeless body has not been found:

1. Is the person dead?
2. If so, was the person murdered?
3. If the person was murdered, then by whose hand?

Taking LB's case, there may be enough circumstantial evidence to posit the answer to Question 1, but, in the absence of a body, Questions 2 and 3 are very illusive. Perhaps at trial there will be witnesses that saw DM and/or MS with LB on the day of her disappearance or witnessed a struggle between them etc. A flurry of telephone calls to DM days before her presumed disappearance, which he may or may not have actually answered, seems a rather long leap away from evidence sufficient to support a charge of murder. IMO. IMHO.

Likewise, in the case of the sudden death of WM, these questions are, so far as we presently are aware, especially difficult to answer in the absence of his remains. IMO. What led to the coroner's determination of suicide in the first place? What prompted a new decision? Is there solid evidence to confirm the answer to Question 2? What evidence confirms the answer to Question 3?

Finally, in the case of TB, while LE very early stated there there were no links between TB and DM, other than the truck test drive, there has been almost no public examination of any links between the accused, his family members or his associates and the victim, his family members or his associates (as there is, for instance, in the present AL family missing persons case in Alberta. We only know that "unrecognizable remains", as originally defined by LE, were delivered to his widow "in a small box". As you pointed out there must have been very significant findings to confirm the answers to questions 1 and 2, to the satisfaction of LE. Whether these responses will lead to the answer to the third question remains to be seen. IMO.

Anyway, thanks for the very interesting information, Snoop. However, again I must stand by my argument. Getting a murder conviction without a physical body to support the charge appears to be exceedingly difficult and very rare. Getting three of them against the same perpetrators will be a triple challenge, imo, and can be expected to drag on in the courts, imho, for many, many years. IMHO. IMO.

There are some interesting arguments in your second link in regards to what constitutes forcible confinement to qualify first degree murder charges in a killing during a robbery.

The charges in all three of these cases is first degree murder. In the case of LB, it will be interesting to finally find out what evidence has been found that leads them to that particular charge, rather than second degree or manslaughter.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

Potential issues in the "direct indictment" approach.

http://www.calgary.ca/cps/Pages/Community-programs-and-resources/Crime-prevention/Missing-persons.aspx

I had also previously posted in regards to problems with the direct indictment approach, with links to the Attorney General website and the Court of Appeal website, and samples of cases where this approach resulted in wrongful conviction and acquittal.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?240759-Tim-Bosma-Dellen-Millard-amp-Mark-Smich-chgd-w-Murder-Christina-Noudga-Accessory&p=10657059#post10657059

Perhaps if better use were made of pre-trial conferences, with the case laid out in full, there would be more opportunity for mediation and resolving some issues. As it is, the defense receives such a mass of disclosure that it can be difficult to determine the essence of the Crown's case.

He persuaded the parties that Crown counsel should present her case at the "conference" by way of PowerPoint, with video and audio exhibits accompanying the PowerPoint presentation. He then had the Crown repeat the performance in front of the accused. Once the accused appreciated the strength of the Crown's case, pleas quickly ensued, once again saving the justice system a very lengthy preliminary inquiry and trial and providing the victim with closure.
....
One unintended adverse consequence of the broad sweep of Stinchcombe disclosure is that the defence now receives so much material that they cannot always appreciate the core of the Crown's case. The old style of Crown brief, while much more limited than what Stinchcombe requires, at least had the advantage of clearly setting out the Crown's case. By using the s. 625.1 "conference" as a vehicle for the Crown to explain and outline their case, in this forceful and dramatic way, the Judge helped the parties to better understand the Crown's case.

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.o.../chapter_4.asp

One of the problems with direct indictments that causes public distrust is the secrecy they are surrounded in. The judicial system needs to be open to public scrutiny and criticism to ensure public confidence in the integrity and fairness of the system.

From the Court of Appeal website:

Along with more openness through the publication of guidelines, Attorneys General should be encouraged to provide reasons for important decisions in individual cases. Without reasons, decisions are virtually immune from judicial review.
This is a far more satisfactory state of affairs than what occurred in R. v. Taylor,[123] where Crown counsel, when asked by the judge for the reasons for preferring a direct indictment, replied that he did not know and therefore could not communicate the reasons. In the face of an allegation by defence counsel that the Attorney General had preferred the indictment for improper motives, the judge simply said “there is no evidence before me as to the reason or reasons for the Honourable Allan Williams’ decision to sign and to be presented these four indictments. Therefore, it would be sheer speculation on my part to hold that the Attorney General has acted with impropriety.”[124] In providing reasons, the Attorney General in the Morgentaler prosecution did credit to the administration of justice. However, the kind of position taken by Crown counsel in Taylor may tend to deepen the public’s mistrust and suspicion of the machinery of justice.

http://www.ontariocourts.ca/coa/en/p...n_function.htm

Here is one case where a direct indictment was challenged as an abuse of process. In exchange for concessions from the Defense, the Crown agreed to call 20 witnesses in the preliminary hearing. After only 2 witnesses were called, the Crown applied for a direct indictment saying it was in the "public interest". I don't believe it went through, but there are other abuse of process filings made in that case that could cause ongoing court hearings. Not only does the indictment show a lack of trust, but also could potentially lengthen court times rather than shortening them. Interest thought from the article:

A preliminary hearing is a "dress rehearsal" for the defence and the Crown to test the strengths and the weaknesses of each side and can streamline the trial, said defence lawyer Edward Sapiano. "It is beneficial for the administration of justice and the taxpayer," he said. The decision to unilaterally end the hearing will lengthen the trial and make it difficult for the defence to enter into any future agreements with the Crown, he suggested.

http://www.canada.com/story_print.ht...9082e&sponsor=

Another case, this one in Winnipeg. A wrongful conviction that could have been avoided if they had gone ahead with the preliminary trial.

Mr. Driskell was convicted in 1991 of murdering his friend, Mr. Harder, who was found dead of gunshot wounds four months after he went missing in Winnipeg. The Crown proceeded by direct indictment, forgoing the preliminary hearing that might have raised doubts about the evidence against him.
...
He said it meant a great deal to him that Manitoba Attorney-General David Chomiak phoned him beforehand to offer his personal apology, and an apology on behalf of all Manitobans. Mr. Chomiak also offered an initial compensation payment of $250,000 as a gesture of good faith. Mr. Driskell will likely be paid more than $1-million in compensation, and he has also brought a $20-million civil suit against the Crown and police.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...article679185/

Manitoba seems to use direct indictments much more than Ontario. Two more cases that were acquitted/fell apart:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...awyer-1.652295

Don't know what happened with this one, if anything yet.

A veteran city defence lawyer is slamming a sudden move by justice officials to directly indict a man charged with attempted murder in a bizarre carjacking case, saying they’re flouting both internal policy and an agreement made years ago meant to guard against wrongful convictions.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2013/05/2...defence-lawyer

 

[Alethea Dice]

Carli, I believe that you may be right about "tunnel vision", however, one area that gets continually overlooked is exactly how the huge computer seizure related to this case may actually fit in. IMHO, proving that a person is dead beyond a reasonable doubt may not be that hard if the murder and/or disposal of the body has been captured digitally. We only need look back a couple of decades to see the sick, warped mind of PB, who had several video tapes of his crimes. What if every single crime the accused are charged with happens to be filmed? Would the evidence against PB have been different if he had a cell phone, iPad and a mirage of social media accounts?

Unfortunately, we don't yet know what is in that computer seizure or how much of it shows proof and to which investigation.

LE at TB's funeral? Considering the exhausting search efforts and the prayers of a whole community, IMO, it was very respectful of HPS to attend the funeral and as far as digging into the victims extended family etc- I just can't bite on that one either. That would be like dissecting the victims families in the PB murders. Regardless if a person has emotional, financial or alcohol problems- their murder is just as criminal as the murder of a Saint.

But that is happening in the Calgary case and did as well, to a certain degree, in the PB murders.

LE have told us that there are 3 dead people who have all been tied to DM. A father, a lover and a random person who just happened to be found in or around an incinerator on DM's farm and LE has charged DM with 3 counts of First Degree murder. IMO, the publication ban that's been in place has worked and skipping over the preliminary trial will go a long way in ensuring that a jury will not be tainted, after all, MSM coverage on the case is almost non-existent these days, so chances are by the time DM goes to trial, selecting an unbiased jury won't be that hard.

The preliminary trial will still be subjected to the same publication ban. I'm curious as to why you think skipping over it would help to ensure an unbiased jury. IMO, it could have quite the opposite effect, in that the public could be lead to believe that the Crown's case is so overwhelming that guilt must be obvious.

JMO

 

[Carli]

On a calmer note, a careful reading of http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/ccr-rc/pmj-pej/p4.html Canada's Justice Department "REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON THE PREVENTION OF MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE" will clarify the definitions

"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.” Tunnel vision, and its perverse by-product “noble cause corruption,” 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."

Further noting

"Specific factors that may contribute to Crown tunnel vision, and thus impair the proper role of the Crown Attorney, include:

- close identification with police and/or victim;
- pressure by the media and/or special interest groups; and
- isolation from other perspectives.

Tunnel vision must be guarded against vigilantly, as it is a trap that can capture even the best police officer or prosecutor."

Some people may disagree with the government's point of view on this issue IMO. IMHO.

 

[Carli]

Yes, a clearer understanding of the issues and problems facing the victim's family were and are exhaustively examined in the tragic Liknes case in Calgary. Arguably, it was exactly that depth of sleuthing that may have helped lead to the identification of a former business partner who (presumably) may have played a role in three murders. Yet, the activities of the Bosma family's construction business, Florida real estate interests, government inspection agency association, links between family and business relationships, etc. all these are verboten, IMO. MOO. IMHO. This is exactly the sort of thing that leads to worry about the stability of the crown's case, imo, imho. I deeply appreciate the victim friendly stance of this site and applaud the mods efforts to insure it.

 

[ABro]

Having deliberately chosen to delete any reference to reductio ad absurdum here, I feel bound to ask if there is any point in bothering with a trial, do you think? They're costly. Besides, you never know, a jury os peers might just stupidly let the murderer(s) get off scott free. IMO. IMHO.

Respectfully, I think the point regarding "tunnel vision" does not have to do with choosing to disregard evidence against a person charged with a crime. It is in reference to a tendancy to disregard evidence that may point AWAY from a person charged with a crime. MOO. IMHO.

No it's both. Cops with tunnel vision often overlook a suspect with lots of evidence pointing to him/her to pin the blame on someone else. Tunnel vision is about disregarding evidence period and trying to pin the crime on the person you FEEL must be guilty.

 

[ABro]

On a calmer note, a careful reading of http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/ccr-rc/pmj-pej/p4.html Canada's Justice Department "REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON THE PREVENTION OF MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE" will clarify the definitions

"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.” Tunnel vision, and its perverse by-product “noble cause corruption,” 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."

Further noting

Some people may disagree with the government's point of view on this issue IMO. IMHO.

I don't disagree with the government's definition of tunnel vision at all although I often disagree with government, the crown attorney and the police.

 

[Carli]

I don't disagree with the government's definition of tunnel vision at although I often disagree with government, the crown attorney and the police.

That's good. IMO, those who know all the answers have not been asking the right questions.

 

[ABro]

Yes, a clearer understanding of the issues and problems facing the victim's family were and are exhaustively examined in the tragic Liknes case in Calgary. Arguably, it was exactly that depth of sleuthing that may have helped lead to the identification of a former business partner who (presumably) may have played a role in three murders. Yet, the activities of the Bosma family's construction business, Florida real estate interests, government inspection agency association, links between family and business relationships, etc. all these are verboten, IMO. MOO. IMHO. This is exactly the sort of thing that leads to worry about the stability of the crown's case, imo, imho. I deeply appreciate the victim friendly stance of this site and applaud the mods efforts to insure it.

TIM Bosma and his father ran small HVAC businesses. How does that make them more suspicious than my plumber or your electrician? What are you getting at?

"Florida real estate" sure does sound a whole lot more big time than a time share condo. Again are you implying that people with a time share ownership for one week a year merit suspicion? What are you trying to say?

Government inspection agency links. Ok, Sharlene Bosma had a relatively lowly job at an outpost of the Canadian Government's food inspection Agency. And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

You make it all sound so spooky, but it's really just a giant steaming pile of innuendo and rumours. I'm not seeing one fact here or anything to look into.

There is no secret plot to protect the Bosmas and imprison the Millards. And if there was, someone really screwed up when they forgot to inform the Toronto police.

And to come back to tunnel vision. It's when you ignore the incinerator where the remains of the victim were reported to have been found and focus on a timeshare in Florida because, well, we don't know because you never tell us... It's all a perfect conspiratorial circle.

 

[bessie]

Another point for discussion - just introduced by me on another thread, too - has to do with "tunnel vision".

See http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/TunnelVision_WEB.pdf

It can't have escaped anyone's notice that the memorial service for poor TB was televised nationally and, amazingly IMO, actually had LE members in attendance. How will LE justify such unusual association with a crime victim's family? Does LE have sufficient reliable and credible evidence to support its rush to judgement? Where will the jurors be found who have not been swayed by the local, national and international coverage of this tragedy? Given such extensive coverage, can a fair trial even be called. Moreover, is it possible that we may have a classic case of tunnel vision otherwise defined as "confirmation bias" on our hands? Well, we shall see. IMO. IMHO. OMO.

Interestingly, in the Calgary headline case, a good deal of effort has been devoted to dissecting the victim's financial and familiar affairs in an important effort to try to get to the bottom of what happened. Not so in this case. WS is thankfully, of course, victim friendly, but evidently there are degrees of what's permissible. Who knows if, for instance, any examination of TB's extended family, their finances and associations, could lead to important additional or important leads in the case. Just sayin'. Just askin' . IMO. IMHO. We know tons about the Millard dynasty; LB's emotional/psychological issues and absolutely nothing about the B family (except for those possibly critical issues uncovered by those who have taken time to sleuth.) IMO. IMHO. Horribly politically provocative I know, but facts are facts, and we don't get to the truth by skipping over them and pretending they don't matter. IMO. MOO. IMHO. And, just in case, let me add a new acronym "AMSOO" "Absolutely my sole opinion only".

bbm


Gotta fact?

Gotta link?

Send the info in a pm to a mod, and the mod will let you know if it can be posted. Otherwise, you're violating TOS by alluding to inside information.


Thanks.

 

[Carli]

bbm


Gotta fact?

Gotta link?

Send the info in a pm to a mod, and the mod will let you know if it can be posted. Otherwise, you're violating TOS by alluding to inside information.


Thanks.

Yes, I'll definitely do so but it will take awhile to reassemble the various links. Will do my best. But I only have MSM things and other online sources noted through the course of the investigation. I have not intended to allude to inside information. I don't have any inside information. I don't know this family or any of the families involved in this tragedy.

 

[lclabtech]

Yes, a clearer understanding of the issues and problems facing the victim's family were and are exhaustively examined in the tragic Liknes case in Calgary. Arguably, it was exactly that depth of sleuthing that may have helped lead to the identification of a former business partner who (presumably) may have played a role in three murders. Yet, the activities of the Bosma family's construction business, Florida real estate interests, government inspection agency association, links between family and business relationships, etc. all these are verboten, IMO. MOO. IMHO. This is exactly the sort of thing that leads to worry about the stability of the crown's case, imo, imho. I deeply appreciate the victim friendly stance of this site and applaud the mods efforts to insure it.

I think it's an awfully big assumption to suggest that these aspects of TB's life haven't been at all investigated and that MAYBE, just maybe, the dude who was a) the last person to have been seen with Bosma b) had TB's remains on his property and c) had TB's truck on his property just made more sense to follow through with.

That's not tunnel vision, IMO. They had reasonable cause (plenty of it) to turn the focus of their investigation to Dellen Millard. It's not a "victim friendly stance" that shapes that opinion for me - it's just common sense.

 

[lclabtech]

Respectfully, I think the point regarding "tunnel vision" does not have to do with choosing to disregard evidence against a person charged with a crime. It is in reference to a tendancy to disregard evidence that may point AWAY from a person charged with a crime. MOO. IMHO.

Is it possible that any compelling evidence that points away from DM doesn't actually exist? Without knowing of its existence, can we actually accuse LE of "disregarding evidence"?

With what little information we have, I see no compelling argument for LE demonstrating "tunnel vision" in this case, though that's certainly a route that DM's lawyer might want to go down if he has information to suggest otherwise.

 

[Carli]

Does anyone have a link to the police presser where LE confirms that TB's body was found in the incinerator?

In a well researched summary of the case dated April 11, 2014, Susan Clairmont writes for the Hamilton Spectator (a story picked up by many news outlets)
http://www.insidehalton.com/news-story/4460278-clairmont-police-believe-body-of-accused-bosma-killer-s-girlfriend-was-incinerated/

"Police have said they believe Bosma was killed the night he was abducted and his body burned in an animal incinerator at a farm owned by Millard in Ayr, near Kitchener."

In an April 10, 2014 story for the NP,
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/04/10/dellen-millard-charged-with-murder-of-his-father-and-missing-toronto-woman-laura-babcock/

Josh Visser chooses words carefully writing

"Millard, who comes from a well-known Canadian aviation family, was later charged with murder when Bosma’s charred remains were found [on] a farm near near Cambridge, Ont. that belonged to Millard."

and

"Found on Millard’s farm was an incinerator purchased by Millard in July 2012. Known as The Eliminator, the machine is used to cremate livestock. Police have confirmed that Millard did not have any farm animals on his farm."

The implication is very clear and obviously probable. Does anybody have the actual police statement? I seem to recall concern being expressed at one point about more ashes having been found than would be attributable to one person, but I can't find that reference now, either. Thanks.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Carli, in answer to your challenge, imagine there's no evidence and then describe the evidence needed to convict.

Imagine this policing situation: you're a mom, you have a kid, and you want them to not eat between meals.

Well, you go into the kitchen and it's apparent that someone made a sandwich. You do NOT have high definition video trained on your kitchen. You didn't see a sandwich made, and there is no sign of the sandwich - it's gone - but all signs are that a sandwich was made.

How do you know this? Well, the bread has been disturbed, the margarine and mayo are at the front of the fridge shelf instead of buried in the back there. There is a wet tip on the mustard bottle. Someone didn't close the bologna package properly, there is less bologna, there is juice from a sliced tomato, you find the rest of it in the garbage, crumbs everywhere, some attempt to cover tracks in that a butterknife and a chef's knife are in the dishrack (because your kid thinks this is all you have to do to make things clean enough that you don't notice). There is no smoking gun but all this evidence taken together, I can describe the sandwich quite well.

Did a sandwich happen?
When did this happen?
Where did this happen?
Did someone cause a sandwich to happen?
Did someone intend to cause a sandwich to happen?
Did your kid make the sandwich?

Further investigation shows that you are missing a plate, and you find the plate in your kid's room, covered in crumbs and a smear of mayo, and also the wrapper to a slice of process cheese in their waste can. Your kid tried to hide what they were up to but they ended up tying themselves directly to the action. (This is like DM hiding the truck on his mom's property and the remains at his farm).

How else do you know it was your kid? Your spouse is at work, your other kid was with you, and the kid you suspect has a habit of doing this (lack of alibi, DM stole a Harley, DM stole a truck) and they were talking about bologna and mustard hours ago, asked you to put it on the grocery list (DM's calls to LB and TB).

Making the sandwich (and attempting to hide the signs) is so complex that it is clearly intentional. Someone intended to make that sandwich. It didn't happen by accident or recklessness.

So, anyway, you are going to have to talk to your spouse about this and see if you are going to ground this kid or take away their screen time. You document everything (pictures, words, just like a coroner's report). Then you clean the kitchen because life moves on and you can't preserve a mess forever. Because you cleaned up, is there now no evidence, even if I have documented it all beforehand, and your spouse sees myou as a reliable reporter? (Just because evidence is destroyed when it is no longer useful after being documented, does not mean evidence never existed/does not exist.)

In fact over time your kid is getting fatter (Just the passage of time will help build a case, e.g., that LB is dead.)

Your spouse gets home and you go to confront your kid. The kid is smug. "You didn't see me make a sandwich and there's no video of me making a sandwich!" they cry. "I didn't make a sandwich!" and your spouse and you look at each other and shake your heads and say, the little bugger thinks like a 12 year old. Well, they're 12. I guess that's acceptable.

GROUNDED!

 

[lclabtech]

I think they're awfully going to find it hard to explain away all of the evidence when taken in its entirety.

If it was just that a witness had pegged MS and DM as the last people to be seen with TB, perhaps their lawyers could try and argue that TB was dropped off somewhere, that a deal was made for the truck. That would explain the truck being on DM's property. Okay, fine - if TB's remains were found nearly anywhere else, you've established reasonable doubt. Anything could've happened to him at that point. And anyone could've done it to him.

But then TB's remains were found on DM's property. In an incinerator he purchased around the time another of his friends disappears and who he was one of the last people she was known to have contact with. In an livestock incinerator. With no livestock. Suddenly starting to get a hell of a lot more difficult to explain away.

Can anyone speculate as to what DM's lawyer's strategy might be here?

 

[ABro]

Can anyone speculate as to what DM's lawyer's strategy might be here?

Blame Smich? Millard was a kind generous person who let himself be taken advantage of by a wayward friend who he just really, truly wanted to help.