Discussion in 'Timothy Bosma' started by Sillybilly, Oct 21, 2017.
OTOH, if their deaths were nothing of the kind then the less said about it the better.
BBC news has posted an article about DM.
I’m not sure why Marks “followers” are still even being discussed here? I haven’t seen anyone in support of MS since the M1 verdict. Only that he has a better chance of rehabilitation then DM. Also, Just because someone doesn’t think MM was upfront in what she really knew, does not mean they also support MS and thinks he’s innocent. <modsnip>
That just made me smile sweet justice
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
C'mon, Winter. You're better than that. This is an accepted statement here and has been discussed, referenced and quoted often.....
Ann Brocklehurst (@AnnB03) tweeted at 0:20 PM on Sat, Dec 16, 2017:
Millard now speaking about sentencing. He says he's happy to have counsel represent him at sentencing, he would be ok absenting himself. He will stay at Pen. Judge tells him it's "hugely important" now with consecutive sentencing issue
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
Does anyone know if the law around day parole eligibility has changed? According to the interview with a lawyer, M1 convicted criminals can apply for "day parole" 3 years prior to the 25 years, and the timeline is calculated from time of arrest.
In the case of the new consecutive sentencing, does the eligibility for day parole also change? Will DM and MS be eligible to apply for day parole 3 years before serving 25 years, or 3 years before serving 50 years?
Did a quick search and found this Government of Canada information on parole. It's dated 2010, so I'm not sure it's up to date.
"For day parole, most offenders are eligible 6 months before theirfull parole eligibility date."
It’s not contradictory. I said that in the case of Smich and Millard it’s not a matter of “degrees of psychopathy” because I think the available evidence strongly suggests that Smich doesn’t meet the criteria for psychopathy. The majority of that 40 point scale measures the 97-99% of people in society who would not be diagnosed as psychopathic. Because of his capacity for violent criminality I think it is safe to assume that Smich would score higher than most of us here on the forum, and that’s what I said. But whatever distance lies between us and Smich in this realm, I think it’s so clear that at least as much distance lies between Smich and Millard.
Smich is probably smiling in that photo because that’s what we reflexively do when somebody points a camera at us. Nonetheless, everything suggests he was morally untroubled by his actions and actively wanting to participate. So what is he “happy” about? I don’t know, and I’m not sure how anybody else can know either. The evidence we have might suggest he’s happy to be “working” and happy to be bonded with Millard in this criminal secret. People often talk about thrill killing, but what we actually know implies that these were criminally practical, mercenary acts.
The whole thing is such a horror movie that we can forget that people cremate bodies legally every day as a service. The act itself then is not monstrous, but the context in which it is done can surely make it that. But Millard treated Smich as his journeyman and perhaps that allowed Smich to justify his actions by transferring the bulk of the moral responsibility to Millard. There are many examples of this psychological process in history, both experimentally and in the real world.
Which ever it is, 3 years or 6 months prior, I would think in the case of consecutive sentencing, it would be around the 50 year mark, opposed to the 25 year mark.
Snipped and BBM:
Come on. I agree with some people smiling when a camera is pointed at them, in a benign environment. But to smile reflexively doing a job like this? One you have supposedly been manipulated into doing? That is a pretty ridiculous suggestion, IMO. He's smiling so broadly because he is quite pleased with himself. MOO
Like the celebratory mood he was in almost a year later. MOO
Agreed. His is not a "I'm in front of the camera' smile.
What youre seeing is the thrill of a thrill kill.
You come on. Smiling and/or mugging for a camera is such a strong reflexive response that you need an active reason for it NOT to happen. What would that reason be in this case? Smich was there, and he did it. Because he wanted to be there, and he wanted to do it. What in those facts would prevent him from acting as people normally act in front of a camera?
We know he incinerated Laura, and we know that he didn't do that in a state of sober reflection. We know he wrote a rap about it. We know there's no indication he was morally troubled by any of it. That's about all I'm confident in knowing. Many seem to be comfortable knowing exactly what he was thinking and feeling and what that smile meant in some pretty fine detail.
Or maybe a "Nobody can f--- with Say10 and Dman" smile. MOO
It would be interesting to know what he reached out to MM for when he was arrested and sober. IIRC, he was caught trying to contact her.
I read here that DM had some girlfriends present in the courthouse. Im just wondering if inmates serving life sentences are allowed to get married. I’ve heard that there are women that correspond with prisoners, but is marriage allowed? This is just idle curiosity.
All I have for my 80 zillion hours on this case are a trainloads of facts that are pretty much useless for conversation, and a lousy t-shirt. Ha ha. I don't actually have a t-shirt. I say useless for conversation because never have so many words been written about a woman and yet we've still managed to leave huge misconceptions and fact deficits in the popular understanding of events. And the crime board discussion on the case was this entire evolving subculture of its own that functioned for years with the occasional burst of serious drama. We moved through about three boards as time rolled on and one of the longest serving and oldest boards was shut down by Yuku when Luka Magnotta showed up anonymously and manipulated the board owner and others into acrimony and revenge behaviour against each other so serious that that was the only recourse. It was amazing to watch from my little intersecting board and it was one of the most direct lessons I've ever had about just how effective psychopaths can be in effecting the things they want, and how toying with people is it's own reward for them.
As you noted, there were several books written and as always when that happens each brings something different and important in it's own way. I would recommend you start reading in this order and just stop when you've had enough.
What: Lethal Marriage by Nick Pron
Why: The book that is probably one that is probably most critical in understanding the degree of physical, psychological, emotional and sexual abuse Homolka experienced with her psychopathic sexual sadist boyfriend/husband. Lays an important foundation to everything that came next.
What: Deadly Innocence by Scott Burnside and Alan Cairns
Why: slightly different sources, good book, adds further details about things from all sides
What: The Galligan Report
Why: Judicial report by Justice Galligan who was commissioned by the Harris government to do an inquiry on the wildly unpopular "Deal with the Devil' struck by the previous government. It's dense and legal at times, but it allows a MUCH more accurate understanding of what happened in Homolka's plea deal, and why. It debunks popular beliefs like the erroneous and oft repeated "fact" that when the tapes were found it was revealed that Karla had lied about her involvement. If you like reading CANLii documents, you'll like this too.
What: Invisible Darkness by Stephen Williams
Why: Long, extensively sourced and ambitious. It's essential reading on the case BUT you can't start with it because he's dismissive of a lot of the context and when it comes to interpreting Karla's behaviour it becomes almost novel-like. He's overly suspicious in general and you won't have an appropriately complete and nuanced view of the big picture if Williams' views become your basic framework for understanding the case. So do read this, but start somewhere else.
There are a few other recommendations I could make for reading - some of the 2005 court proceedings for example, and an early book by an academic named Frank Davey called Karla's web which focuses on the media's role in warping the understanding of the case. But it gets pretty esoteric at this point and probably more than anybody needs to know about such a soul crushing case.
Hope you enjoy your reading if you take it on!
Yes, they can get married. Bernardo was set to be married, I don't believe it panned out.
Being married however, doesn't automatically set you up for private family visits. There are specific requirements to facilitate PFV that mostly have to do with violence and safety, how high a risk it is for the parties involved, or how far along the offender is in their sentence and "rehabilitation". Those who are not married can also apply for PFV.
I getting caught up so apologies if this has been answered. IMO skipping
sentencing should NOT be an option. The guilty party should have to face the judge, listen to his comments, as well as any from the family. The victims family should be able to have the tiny consolation of seeing the face of guilty when sentenced to another life term.
rsbm. Thank you for this! I asked for Invisible Darkness for Christmas (my family thinks I'm quite strange...) but perhaps I won't start with it. I also was young when the crimes occurred and the cases went before the courts, and have just started on my own unraveling of facts recently. Any groups, blogs, additional online reading, etc, you could also recommend?
Couldn't agree more. Especially when considering in this case, her father was forced to be cross examined by DM. DM should be forced to listen to the Judge and family impact statements.