Bosma Murder Trial 02.25.16 - Day 15

[CJPRINCESS]

Does Napa deal in computer parts for cars.....maybe that is what they both have in common....maybe they both know DM and are at the hangar frequently....maybe Napa buys computer parts from IT Guy's company in Mississauga.....maybe LW has time on her hands, <modsnip> and her husband Charley IT guy knows she is good and she is also just what DM needs now that he is in charge of MA. IMOO

Totally different computers IT vs vehicle

 

[billandrew]

I think that was an estimate / projection of what was to made given the plan of creating a "hotel for airplanes" AKA DM's "restructuring" business plan.

Interesting that she would have knowledge of business forecasts and income expectations, but she repeatedly testified to the Crown that she was just a bookkeeper who was hired to record expenses in Quickbooks, and that she did not ask questions or have any real knowledge about the company's financial situation.

 

[Ironworker736]

Interesting that she would have knowledge of business forecasts and income expectations, but she repeatedly testified to the Crown that she was just a bookkeeper who was hired to record expenses in Quickbooks, and that she did not ask questions or have any knowledge or awareness of the company's financial situation.

Excellent point!

ETA - Unless her testimony referred to DM's salary instead of MA's projected income...seems to be confusion in the tweets about that

 

[SnooperDuper]

I think that was an estimate / projection of what was to made given the plan of creating a "hotel for airplanes" AKA DM's "restructuring" business plan.

Actually, I think it was that DM himself would have earned $125,000 salary in 2013 if he had not been arrested.

I thought that it was Millard Air, but SC tweeted that it was DM himself that was forecast to earn that much.

@susanclairmont Millard or Millard Air made/was projected to make $125k (in 2013), can you clarify? Thanks so much.

Susan Clairmont &#8207;@susanclairmont 5h5 hours ago
Dellen Millard drew a salary of $125,000.

Interesting that the company had no income and $125k + $60k in salaries going out to people with no job title.

 

[paris_paris]

I don't think she was pretending to know any more than she knew. What she in her statement to police was "If you're going by the money that's in the bank account, I'd say things are getting tight. Very tight."

She was only commenting on the bank account balance.

 

[flipflop]

Williams' testimony seems sort of sketchy. Can't quite put my finger on it, but something is off.

I agree, with the smile exchange between them, the visits to jail- did DM groom her with what to say if LE came around, WSIB questions, they had an accountant, the sketchy testimony, why was she hired when they had no business - no income, she had no signing power, if she was some kind of bookkeeper - she would be good with #'s and know the diff between $1,800 or 18,000....things that make ya go hmmmmmm.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Unless I hear otherwise from Admin, this is how I call it:

This is a trial thread. The witness LW, her husband, and the company owned by her/them are not on trial here. The testimony LW has given can be discussed, but sleuthing the witnesses and their company is off-limits.

Not questioning the rules at all, but I have to ask something (for my own clarity) about sleuthing people/names/etc. Sometimes I don't understand the difference between sleuthing (as in digging up every last detail on a person) and sleuthing as in googling for clarity (if that makes sense?)

In a case like this, when a witness gives a testimony and it doesn't appear to make a lot of sense, and names her company, unless one were to google it for clarity, one would be under the false impression that a bookkeeper's business would be a bookkeeping business. Which in this case, is totally NOT the case at all (and makes it even more confusing).

Not sure if that makes sense, but sometimes it seems like there are gray areas on this, especially when it's something already in MSM.

 

[billandrew]

I don't think she was pretending to know any more than she knew. What she in her statement to police was "If you're going by the money that's in the bank account, I'd say things are getting tight. Very tight."

She was only commenting on the bank account balance.

I would say that she was pretending to know less than she knew. At least in her testimony. JMO.

ETA: on one occasion during her testimony, the Crown provided her police statements to her in order to help her refresh her memory, but she stated that it did not refresh her memory regarding the question they had asked. The Crown's frustration was apparent to all in the courtroom.

 

[Abitcountry]

Totally different computers IT vs vehicle

<modsnip>The witness has given the impression that she is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.....but don't you believe it. We may soon learn that she is crazy like a fox.

And hubby....just the IT guy my @@@. He knows computers and probably every computer component under your hood and in all manner of surveillance equipment...I suspect he is pretty handy with the books as well. Let's cut to the chase.
He likely hung around the hangar...he and his beloved because they were right at home if you get my drift.

 

[Ontario Mom]

I would say that she was pretending to know less than she knew. At least in her testimony. JMO.

ETA: on one occasion during her testimony, the Crown provided her police statements to her in order to help her refresh her memory, but she stated that it did not refresh her memory regarding the question they had asked. The Crown's frustration was apparent to all in the courtroom.

Someone tweeted today, I think it was ABro, that LW seemed to be agreeing with *everything* the defense argued. To which I agree. It almost seemed like she wanted to be a witness for the defense but it didn't quite work out that way for her?

I've never really followed a trial this closely before so if I'm asking stupid questions - just ignore me

 

[Sillybilly]

Not questioning the rules at all, but I have to ask something (for my own clarity) about sleuthing people/names/etc. Sometimes I don't understand the difference between sleuthing (as in digging up every last detail on a person) and sleuthing as in googling for clarity (if that makes sense?)

In a case like this, when a witness gives a testimony and it doesn't appear to make a lot of sense, and names her company, unless one were to google it for clarity, one would be under the false impression that a bookkeeper's business would be a bookkeeping business. Which in this case, is totally NOT the case at all (and makes it even more confusing).

Not sure if that makes sense, but sometimes it seems like there are gray areas on this, especially when it's something already in MSM.

Yes, there are rules and we moderate according to them, but ... things aren't always black & white in moderation either, and sometimes it's a judgment call, discretion, or common sense.

Again, this is a witness who, as far as we know, was just a bookkeeper at MA. She is NOT on trial. Just because her company was named doesn't give us licence to drag out every single detail about her life, her family, and her business. Stick to her testimony, rip her testimony apart if you will, point out discrepancies, give an opinion on her courtroom demeanour if you like, but leave her personal and business life out of it unless it is something that is brought up in court.

Unless/until Admin advises otherwise (in which case we will let you know), that's how it stands and we won't derail the thread with further discussion in that regard.

ETA: The nature of her overall business doesn't matter ... she provides bookkeeping services within whatever that structure is.

 

[Kamille]

I would say that she was pretending to know less than she knew. At least in her testimony. JMO.

ETA: on one occasion during her testimony, the Crown provided her police statements to her in order to help her refresh her memory, but she stated that it did not refresh her memory regarding the question they had asked. The Crown's frustration was apparent to all in the courtroom.

Something tells me she won't be the only witness like that. :notgood:

MOO

 

[billandrew]

Someone tweeted today, I think it was ABro, that LW seemed to be agreeing with *everything* the defense argued. To which I agree. It almost seemed like she wanted to be a witness for the defense but it didn't quite work out that way for her?

I've never really followed a trial this closely before so if I'm asking stupid questions - just ignore me

Yes. Not a dumb question at all. According to the answers she gave on the stand, it did seem like she was more supportive of the defense's cause. At least that's how I interpreted it.

 

[matou]

Why was Williams texting Millard about WSIB? Was someone claiming workman's compensation at Millardair?

 

[Ontario Mom]

Yes, there are rules and we moderate according to them, but ... things aren't always black & white in moderation either, and sometimes it's a judgment call, discretion, or common sense.

Again, this is a witness who, as far as we know, was just a bookkeeper at MA. She is NOT on trial. Just because her company was named doesn't give us licence to drag out every single detail about her life, her family, and her business. Stick to her testimony, rip her testimony apart if you will, point out discrepancies, give an opinion on her courtroom demeanour if you like, but leave her personal and business life out of it unless it is something that is brought up in court.

Unless/until Admin advises otherwise (in which case we will let you know), that's how it stands and we won't derail the thread with further discussion in that regard.

ETA: The nature of her overall business doesn't matter ... she provides bookkeeping services within whatever that structure is.

Thanks, that does help :tyou:

 

[billandrew]

Why was Williams texting Millard about WSIB? Was someone claiming workman's compensation at Millardair?

Nope. It's an insurance premium based on the amount of salaries being paid. The insurance rate also depends on the type of work they do. For example, my accounting firm pays a fraction of a percent of our employee earnings toward WSIB premiums. Demolition companies, on the other hand, pay 18.31% of their workers' earnings toward WSIB since it is an extremely high risk job.

For clarity, the employer pays this over and above the salaries. The employees don't pay it.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Why was Williams texting Millard about WSIB? Was someone claiming workman's compensation at Millardair?

I wondered the same but only AFTER I googled it because I didn't know what that was. I still don't understand how that fits, and IIRC, there were legal arguments immediately after that was mentioned so we never heard anything more about that. Although, there were only 3 people on the payroll, so I'm assuming it had to be either DM, SS or MB that this applies to.

 

[Tealgrove]

Changes were made to WSIB a few years ago wherein every company no matter how many employees were employed had to be covered. It was a sweeping change. Could very well be that they never paid into it previously and had to get set up with it now. Just a thought. The timing would be about right.

 

[Coldpizza]

Admin Note

Mocking and disparaging remarks about the witnesses will not be tolerated. Discussing testimony is fine, but please be mindful.

Thanks

 

[swedie]

Nope. It's an insurance premium based on the amount of salaries being paid. The insurance rate also depends on the type of work they do. For example, my accounting firm pays a fraction of a percent of our employee earnings toward WSIB premiums. Demolition companies, on the other hand, pay 18.31% of their workers' earnings toward WSIB since it is an extremely high risk job.

For clarity, the employer pays this over and above the salaries. The employees don't pay it.

Hmmm but wouldn't you think she should know this already from past years and experience? Do you suspect DM knew more than her in this area? I think I would have trusted MA's accountant over DM TBH. Of course unless there was some sketchy going on. MOO.