Bosma Murder Trial 02.25.16 - Day 15

Status
Not open for further replies.
I suspect that money was being siphoned. JMO
 
Maybe Charlie did IT work for them previously. She said she met DM in 2001, and that's when the IT company started in Mississauga.
 
Yesterday we learned...

Jason Agnew, NAPA auto parts salesperson guy who sold auto parts to SS (and spoke with him every day on the phone) also sometimes had dealings with "Charlie the IT guy"

Charlie the IT guy is Charles Dubiens - Lisa Williams' husband.

Now someone explain to me why the heck the auto parts sales guy *ever* would have had a reason to deal with Charlie the IT guy? Auto parts and IT go together as much as peanut butter and lugnuts.

So I'm the guy running the hangar. I hire Lisa to do bookeepping. I pay SS to deal with other stuff, including the NAPA guy, that he talks to on the phone EVERY day.

How the heck does Lisa's husband end up dealing with the NAPA guy?

[video=twitter;702537648682999808]https://twitter.com/susanclairmont/status/702537648682999808[/video]

Hm, you are right. Something tells me Lisa Williams and her husband were much more involved with Millard's business than they are letting on.
 
I guess Williams wasn't on the do-not contact list but should have been. JMO
 
Maybe Charlie did IT work for them previously. She said she met DM in 2001, and that's when the IT company started in Mississauga.

I also assumed the possibility of Charlie the IT guy doing some work for MA at some point but that still makes no sense at all, as to why the auto parts guy would sometimes have dealings with the IT guy.

That's like saying my water softener salt delivery guy sometimes has dealing with my newspaper delivery boy. No, they have no reason to ever talk to each other.
 
Oh what a tangled web we weave!!!!

It just gets curiouser and curiouser.

Pretty soon we're going to need scorecards to keep everything straight. I knew this was going to be a complicated case with people coming from everywhere but it just seems that everyone is connected someway and somehow.
 
I also assumed the possibility of Charlie the IT guy doing some work for MA at some point but that still makes no sense at all, as to why the auto parts guy would sometimes have dealings with the IT guy.

That's like saying my water softener salt delivery guy sometimes has dealing with my newspaper delivery boy. No, they have no reason to ever talk to each other.

My understanding is that Lisa Williams was hired to do the bookkeeping for Millard Air beginning in 2012. She was not the bookkeeper prior to that time. The only business she had with Millard Air prior to that, going back to 2001, was through her husband the IT guy. The confusing part is that her husband invoiced Millard Air through a company that was owned by her, <modsnip>.

Please correct me if this is wrong.
 
Essentially LW is an accounting CLERK. She inputs data, reconciles the bank statements, deposits cheques and handles Payroll etc. These are accounting clerk jobs that don't require formal education so I am not surprised to hear she is self taught. To call her an Accountant is wrong.

The visits in prison are odd I would think. Man, if I were her, I would have up and quit and that would be the end of it.

How does SS continue on the payroll with MA when he is on the no contact list and it now appears that DM was carrying on business while still in prison? Wow!

I don't know about SS. Still on the payroll in 2015? Am I missing something?

It's all very strange.

Do we know if SS was on no contact list?
 
I also assumed the possibility of Charlie the IT guy doing some work for MA at some point but that still makes no sense at all, as to why the auto parts guy would sometimes have dealings with the IT guy.

That's like saying my water softener salt delivery guy sometimes has dealing with my newspaper delivery boy. No, they have no reason to ever talk to each other.

Maybe IT guy was just ordering items for personal use and using MillardAir account to get the discount.
 
My understanding is that Lisa Williams was hired to do the bookkeeping for Millard Air beginning in 2012. She was not the bookkeeper prior to that time. The only business she had with Millard Air prior to that, going back to 2001, was through her husband the IT guy. The confusing part is that her husband invoiced Millard Air through a company that was owned by her, <modsnip>.

Please correct me if this is wrong.

I don't recall seeing that LW's husband invoiced MA through the company name. But I fully admit it's getting REALLY hard to keep all these people straight. Do you have a link handy?
 
The confusing part is that her husband invoiced Millard Air through a company that was owned by her, <modsnip - Reason: not allowed unless there is a link to support>.

BBM. The interesting thing about this is that she clearly stated the name of her company in front of the jury. However, I cannot find it mentioned in the news anywhere (I only know about it because I was in the courtroom!). Thanks for catching onto this!
 
Why would IT guy get a discount if he ordered through the MA account?

If he worked for DM and DM allowed him to use it. Not ethical, but people do it all the time. I know guys with Lordco auto parts accounts who will offer their account number up to a friend, and the friend just has to go to Lordco, buy the part (i.e. brake pads) and give the account # and the discount is applied.
 
I don't recall seeing that LW's husband invoiced MA through the company name. But I fully admit it's getting REALLY hard to keep all these people straight. Do you have a link handy?

Maybe because they all seem to be crooked &#8203;JMO
 
I don't recall seeing that LW's husband invoiced MA through the company name. But I fully admit it's getting REALLY hard to keep all these people straight. Do you have a link handy?

She stated it during her testimony in front of the jury. It may not have been reported in the news. I only know it because I was present in the courtroom yesterday.

The Crown clearly got confused by her testimony because when she got on the stand, she said she was a self-employed bookkeeper and owned her own company, and that this company had done business with MA since 2001. However, she later said she was hired in 2012 to do the bookkeeping, so the Crown had to backtrack and ask what her company's business with MA was prior to 2012. This is when she stated that her husband did the IT work for Millard Air and they invoiced it through her company. I think the entire courtroom was thoroughly confused at that point, and it seemed that she was not being helpful in trying to be clear about anything she said.
 
BBM. The interesting thing about this is that she clearly stated the name of her company in front of the jury. However, I cannot find it mentioned in the news anywhere (I only know about it because I was in the courtroom!). Thanks for catching onto this!

Her husband does computer networking and surveillance work, she says. Williams also has done bookkeeping for other companies under the name AGM Inc.
by Adam Carter 2:33 PM

One of her clients was MillardAir.
by Adam Carter 2:33 PM
 
Her husband does computer networking and surveillance work, she says. Williams also has done bookkeeping for other companies under the name AGM Inc.
by Adam Carter 2:33 PM

One of her clients was MillardAir.
by Adam Carter 2:33 PM

She said she owned it 100% according to my notes. It was all kind of confusing.
 
She stated it during her testimony in front of the jury. It may not have been reported in the news. I only know it because I was present in the courtroom yesterday.

The Crown clearly got confused by her testimony because when she got on the stand, she said she was a self-employed bookkeeper and owned her own company, and that this company had done business with MA since 2001. However, she later said she was hired in 2012 to do the bookkeeping, so the Crown had to backtrack and ask what her company's business with MA was prior to 2012. This is when she stated that her husband did the IT work for Millard Air and they invoiced it through her company. I think the entire courtroom was thoroughly confused at that point, and it seemed that she was not being helpful in trying to be clear about anything she said.

Seems like a deliberately misleading, hostile witness to me. And she contacted LE first back on May 14, 2013. I wonder what changed? ;)

MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
196
Guests online
3,957
Total visitors
4,153

Forum statistics

Threads
592,359
Messages
17,967,991
Members
228,756
Latest member
Curious.tea
Back
Top