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

[matou]

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

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/tim-bosma-murder-suspects-going-115302876.html

 

[Alethea Dice]

With all due respect Swedie, IMHO this is a real stretch. LE make mistakes like everyone else, and more often than any of us wish to acknowledge.

Not sure this is true. There are plenty of people that think the cops NEVER do anything right.

I think the key is to exercise healthy skepticism as as opposed to paranoid conspiratorial thinking.

Well, there has certainly been mistakes made where I am and I'm definitely not one of those people who think they never do anything right. Far from it. I don't think that acknowledging that those mistakes happen more often than may be reported has anything to do with "paranoid conspiratorial thinking". That type of thinking may perhaps apply more to only those who think they never do anything right, for whatever reason those people have those feelings.

JMO

 

[Juballee]

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

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/tim-bosma-murder-suspects-going-115302876.html

I don't really see any of these reasons being relevant in this case, in my opinion. I think that the secrecy factor is really the deciding factor here. To me, in a fair and open judicial system, at least knowing why you are being denied pre-trial would seem important in mounting a fair defence. How can someone properly defend themselves against an charge if they do not know the extent of the evidence against them? And if they have full disclosure of all the crown's evidence, then why the secrecy, why not tell the lawyers of the accused why they are denied a right afforded to most?

There is still something very fishy about all this, in my opinion. Call me whatever you wish for refusing to join the lynch mob, but until everything is out in the open, I am reserving my judgement.

 

[ABro]

Well, there has certainly been mistakes made where I am and I'm definitely not one of those people who think they never do anything right. Far from it. I don't think that acknowledging that those mistakes happen more often than may be reported has anything to do with "paranoid conspiratorial thinking". That type of thinking may perhaps apply more to only those who think they never do anything right, for whatever reason those people have those feelings.

JMO

I would certainly classify myself as less trusting of the cops than some of the people on this forum.

But I don't see anyone here failing to acknowledge that mistakes have been made in the past and will likely be made again in the future.

The opinions expressed in this forum pertain largely to this specific case, the Bosma murder. What exactly are the red flags here that the police and the crown are misbehaving?

 

[ABro]

I don't really see any of these reasons being relevant in this case, in my opinion. I think that the secrecy factor is really the deciding factor here. To me, in a fair and open judicial system, at least knowing why you are being denied pre-trial would seem important in mounting a fair defence. How can someone properly defend themselves against an charge if they do not know the extent of the evidence against them? And if they have full disclosure of all the crown's evidence, then why the secrecy, why not tell the lawyers of the accused why they are denied a right afforded to most?

From the Hamilton Spectator:

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4590481-clairmont-crown-moves-to-fast-track-tim-bosma-case/

Direct indictments are very rare, are only granted in the most serious and complicated cases and generally indicate the Crown believes it has a strong likelihood of conviction.

The preliminary hearing for Dellen Millard, 28, and Mark Smich, 26, is scheduled to begin Sept. 8 and is set to last eight weeks. Its purpose is to allow a judge to determine if there is enough evidence to commit the case to trial.

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.

There is still something very fishy about all this, in my opinion. Call me whatever you wish for refusing to join the lynch mob, but until everything is out in the open, I am reserving my judgement.

There is no lynch mob. The accused will have a fair trial. And if something goes wrong, they will have the right to appeal.

[modsnip] does not negate real, actual evidence.

 

[lclabtech]

It's strange. Everything posted here has seemed to imply that direct indictments are very rare things. But in googling Direct Indictments in Canada, it doesn't really appear that way. There were 93 direct indictments in Alberta in 2013 according to the Edmonton Journal. Do they just mean rare in charges as serious as 1st degree murder?

I also don't buy that the prosecution is "afraid" in any way, shape, or form. Does anyone actually think a preliminary trial will find that there's not enough evidence for charges against DM? A preliminary trial will find that there's not enough evidence to charge the guy who left with the victim in a truck, and was found with the truck on one property and the body on another?

And please, just in case there's any sarcastic comments coming about how this will be over in no time if it's such a slam dunk case - That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying I don't see anything about this that is "fishy" or "secretive" or worth some grand conspiratorial whispers. I don't know enough about Canadian law to know if proceeding with a direct indictment in this case was the right thing to do, nor do I believe we've been given the information to determine that even if we did know enough about Canadian law. But I really can't imagine that any preliminary trial looking at the very basics of this case would determine that there was not enough evidence to go to trial.

 

[Snoofo]

Nope, the accused will have a trial where they are presumed innocent.

It's just that those with the benefit of a pre-trial have a slightly fairer trial. Either get rid of the whole thing or not at all, ever.

Alethea Dice summed up everything else I wanted to say. (Thanks!)

 

[swedie]

It's just that those with the benefit of a pre-trial have a slightly fairer trial. Either get rid of the whole thing or not at all, ever.

Alethea Dice summed up everything else I wanted to say. (Thanks!)

BBM - How so? The GA finds the accused will get their fair trial, that is why they have abolished the PH in this case and many other cases. The GA has based it's decision on bypassing PH on evidence they received and not by what the Crown says. The Crown has no influence to sway the GA's decision the way they or defense would during a PH involving a judge. So is this to suggest our system isn't fair, it is corrupt by this decision?

I feel some are fearful the Crown has a slam dunk case here and were hoping for a PH, hoping defense would be able to get the accused, one or both off on some ridiculous technicality which DP has been able to do in a few of his past cases. And that is JMHO.

 

[Snoofo]

BBM - How so? The GA finds the accused will get their fair trial, that is why they have abolished the PH in this case and many other cases. The GA has based it's decision on bypassing PH on evidence they received and not by what the Crown says. The Crown has no influence to sway the GA's decision the way they or defense would during a PH involving a judge. So is this to suggest our system isn't fair, it is corrupt by this decision?

I feel some are fearful the Crown has a slam dunk case here and were hoping for a PH, hoping defense would be able to get the accused, one or both off on some ridiculous technicality which DP has been able to do in a few of his past cases. And that is JMHO.

1. How is it less fair? You yourself Swedie, said that this decision is very "telling" and that it must mean the evidence is damning. So if you walk in to a trial with that predisposition, the accused are already guilty in your eyes. However, if the trial started like most (preceded with a PH), there'd be more balanced minds walking in to weigh the evidence. The fact that such a decision was made blurs the presumption of innocence and creates prejudice.

2. Once again, if the Crown had a slam-dunk case, and could prove beyond anyone's doubt that they are guilty, why should any of us be fearful? What some posters here don't seem to understand is that we (we know who "we" means) are not defending DM and MS, we are defending the law and justice. Meaning that if the prosecution has a slam dunk case then that is absolutely amazing, they've got the murderers and justice will be served for dear TB. If it is slam dunk, I for one will be thrilled that the right people were captured. For it is TB that drew me to WS, notwithstanding I developed doubts about the certainty others share about the actual guilt of the accused.

So if you actually think some of us are hoping the accused will get off on a technicality, even if they are in fact guilty, I just don't know how to respond to that that wouldn't get me banned from this site. It is offensive to say the least.

 

[ABro]

It's just that those with the benefit of a pre-trial have a slightly fairer trial. Either get rid of the whole thing or not at all, ever.

All or nothing systems with no flexibility allowed are especially prone to miscarriages of justices.

I'm sure you're aware of the problems with imposed minimum sentences and the U.S. three strike rule for example.

Discretionary powers are not in and of themselves a bad thing as you seem to presume.

 

[ABro]

What some posters here don't seem to understand is that we (we know who "we" means) are not defending DM and MS, we are defending the law and justice...

So you keep saying, and yet the same posters who are so eager to defend Dellen Millard are quite happy to slag off others. We've seen them suggest Shawn Lerner was a stalker and that Mark Smich must be surely be guilty and that the fact that Sharlene Bosma works for the Canadian government's Food Inspection Agency merits an investigation, which police have neglected to carry out.

For it is TB that drew me to WS, notwithstanding I developed doubts about the certainty others share about the actual guilt of the accused.

Most posters here believe Millard and Smich are guilty, they don't say they're certain of anything. And although you have been asked on many occasions to share what exactly your doubts are so others can understand where you're coming from, you never do tell us what's unfair about this particular case.

Instead, you move to discuss past miscarriages of justice, which don't seem to have much in common with the Bosma case.

I, for one, would love to hear what raised doubts in your mind about the guilt of the accused. I just wish you'd tell us.

 

[Archangel7]

They, by definition, will get a fair trial as DI isn't unconstitutional and is reviewable.

To even get a review and have the courts take the evidence that supports the DI, it must be an actual flagrant impropriety or mala fides. Which in the real world sort of speaks volumes about the evidence they already have or the information the informant continues to provide?

Defense should by now have the necessary discovery without knowing any possible informant or Crown strategy and if truly innocent, should have no problem proving it without a dress rehearsal.

All we really need at this point is the AG's John Henry on the actual DI doc.

 

[JuneBug67]

I don't really see any of these reasons being relevant in this case, in my opinion. I think that the secrecy factor is really the deciding factor here. To me, in a fair and open judicial system, at least knowing why you are being denied pre-trial would seem important in mounting a fair defence. How can someone properly defend themselves against an charge if they do not know the extent of the evidence against them? And if they have full disclosure of all the crown's evidence, then why the secrecy, why not tell the lawyers of the accused why they are denied a right afforded to most?

There is still something very fishy about all this, in my opinion. Call me whatever you wish for refusing to join the lynch mob, but until everything is out in the open, I am reserving my judgement.

As I'm usually the one in the minority in justice discussions I can definitely say I really appreciate both the value and difficulty of holding that side. So please know that your thoughts are really valued and important. It's easy to feel overwhelmed.

That said, in this instance I really get a clinical psychopath, thrill seeking vibe from Millard and the known facts. I still value fairness and responsible use of state power though. In some ways it's even more important when the defendant and crime raise such passion and disgust.

 

[redheadedgal]

I don't really see any of these reasons being relevant in this case, in my opinion. I think that the secrecy factor is really the deciding factor here. To me, in a fair and open judicial system, at least knowing why you are being denied pre-trial would seem important in mounting a fair defence. How can someone properly defend themselves against an charge if they do not know the extent of the evidence against them? And if they have full disclosure of all the crown's evidence, then why the secrecy, why not tell the lawyers of the accused why they are denied a right afforded to most?

There is still something very fishy about all this, in my opinion. Call me whatever you wish for refusing to join the lynch mob, but until everything is out in the open, I am reserving my judgement.

michael rafferty's lawyer re: DI

“I would have preferred a preliminary hearing but at the end of the day, I don’t think it hurt Mr. Rafferty,” said Derstine

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

 

[SnooperDuper]

I think there are very practical reasons for the DI. I think there are going to be a number of international witnesses: DM's ex fiancee, MS's sister no longer live in Canada and some of WM's aviation buddies never did. It would be a burden for these people to fly to Canada, stay, testify at the preliminary, fly back home and then have to do it all again for the trial.

It's my personal observation that MS seems to be a gangbanger. DM tapped into a bunch of wack rapper gangsters to buy his gun. LB was involved in escorting. Anyone involved in the gangs or prostitution or drugs may not be thrilled about having to testify, and to testify at a preliminary, go back to their scummy unsafe lifestyle, and then return to testify at the trial may be asking too much of them, in terms of their personal safety and security.

So I think the DI is about making it as easy as possible for the witnesses in the trial. MOO.

 

[redheadedgal]

I, for one, would love to hear what raised doubts in your mind about the guilt of the accused. I just wish you'd tell us.

although i do have the utmost faith in our police, i will admit that it bothers me that the accused would be so "stupid" to leave tim's truck at his mother's house and leave the remains on his own property. doing one of those is bad enough, but both? most perps at least try to hide the body/evidence. this always leaves me shaking my head.

 

[Tealgrove]

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.

I've just spent the last 2 days reading this thread. I was away on Vacation in the states when this all went down and it was just this week that I saw the developments. I'm not surprised at all by what has transpired.

With respect to CN, I think she has clear, and in person knowledge, of the night of the murder of Tim Bosma. She may not have been party to it but I believe she was at the Ayr property on the night that Tim Bosma was murdered and drove DM from the property while MS did whatever with TB's truck. She continued to either cover for him or assist him however was required. I believe she knew about LB and that she knew about WM.

This girl knows LOTS in my opinion and like a house of cards, which DM built, it only takes one to fall. With CN being arrested, the others in this "tight little band of brothers" may be talking because they know stuff too. Not necessarily the details of the murder but they will have information that will help.

I think CN knew she was in trouble and she started covering her tracks. She hired a lawyer. She knew it was coming down on her. LE either knew about her involvement and left her out there to catch others or they suspected and left her to see what would happen. Either way, I think they got something.

This crew is young, full of themselves, and they feel invincible. I don't think they're going to stay so smug when they realize all the evidence LE has on them.

 

[SnooperDuper]

although i do have the utmost faith in our police, i will admit that it bothers me that the accused would be so "stupid" to leave tim's truck at his mother's house and leave the remains on his own property. doing one of those is bad enough, but both? most perps at least try to hide the body/evidence. this always leaves me shaking my head.

It is only the brilliant actions of LE that makes DM look so "stupid". Incinerating a body on a private rural property, far far back from the main road seems pretty clever to me. And remember, LE did not find that trailer with TB's truck in it until 3 days after DM was arrested, when MB's neighbourhood started buzzing about the crime, and made the decision that LE should be informed of the trailer's existence. So DM nearly got away with that too.

 

[Snoofo]

although you have been asked on many occasions to share what exactly your doubts are so others can understand where you're coming from, you never do tell us what's unfair about this particular case.

Instead, you move to discuss past miscarriages of justice, which don't seem to have much in common with the Bosma case.

I, for one, would love to hear what raised doubts in your mind about the guilt of the accused. I just wish you'd tell us.

You're right. I just spent the last hour writing it out - even logged on to the laptop for serious typing - and then my post disappeared before posting.

Since I shared my view reluctantly, I'll take the mysterious disappeance of the post as a sign to stay quiet again.

[modsnip]

Now back to one finger typing on phone.

I have a hunch that will seem controversial but if there is even a 1 in 68 chance I am right, it is worth my time advocating for the truth on WS.

[modsnip]

 

[lclabtech]

1. How is it less fair? You yourself Swedie, said that this decision is very "telling" and that it must mean the evidence is damning. So if you walk in to a trial with that predisposition, the accused are already guilty in your eyes. However, if the trial started like most (preceded with a PH), there'd be more balanced minds walking in to weigh the evidence. The fact that such a decision was made blurs the presumption of innocence and creates prejudice.

If the purpose of a preliminary hearing is to only decide if the crown has enough evidence to to proceed and the jury wouldn't be attending said preliminary hearing anyway, doesn't the jury just know that by skipping the preliminary hearing that they... had enough evidence to proceed to trial? And wouldn't any jury member, upon finding out that TB's remains were on DM's farm, see that is obvious?

I guess I just don't see any reason to be concerned that an injustice is being done here to be honest.