Tim Bosma: Dellen Millard & Mark Smich chgd w/Murder; Christina Noudga, Accessory #3

[Juballee]

Here's a hypothetical question:

There is a brand of hot sneakers all the kids are dying for. There are two kids who are friends; one is rich, one is poor. The rich kid has 10 pairs of these shoes, and the poor kid has none. They go for a walk together one night. The next day a third boy is missing and it is assumed he was killed for his shoes. His shoes are found hidden outside one of the rich boy's houses, the body found hidden at another of the rich kid's properties. Both boys are arrested and charged with the muder.

In this hypothetical situation, would one naturally assume that it was the rich boy who had come up with the idea because he wanted to have an 11th pair of the shoes? Or might one assume that it was the poor boy who might have wanted the shoes badly enough to kill for them?

 

[redheart]

Or maybe the two are both sickos and were willing to kill for the sneakers because the end goal wasn't truly the sneakers, it was the fun/power of the killing.

 

[Variant]

Here's a hypothetical question:

There is a brand of hot sneakers all the kids are dying for. There are two kids who are friends; one is rich, one is poor. The rich kid has 10 pairs of these shoes, and the poor kid has none. They go for a walk together one night. The next day a third boy is missing and it is assumed he was killed for his shoes. His shoes are found hidden outside one of the rich boy's houses, the body found hidden at another of the rich kid's properties. Both boys are arrested and charged with the muder.

In this hypothetical situation, would one naturally assume that it was the rich boy who had come up with the idea because he wanted to have an 11th pair of the shoes? Or might one assume that it was the poor boy who might have wanted the shoes badly enough to kill for them?

Is this hypothetical rich kid also charged with murdering his father and a friend?

 

[Juballee]

Is this hypothetical rich kid also charged with murdering his father and a friend?

In this hypothetical situation, no, otherwise it would have been added as an element in the scenario.

I am interested in people's honest answers with the scenario as it is above. Once people have had a chance to give their opinions on this particular hypothetical situation, I will expand upon it, to try to add in other elements, but I am trying to get a feel for this scenario first, if you don't mind.

 

[Juballee]

Or maybe the two are both sickos and were willing to kill for the sneakers because the end goal wasn't truly the sneakers, it was the fun/power of the killing.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that your first guess would be that that the shoes had nothing to do with it, that it was a thrill kill.

If that were the case, do you think that they planned it ahead of time or that it was a spur of the moment decision? Either way, whose idea do you think it was in this scenario, and why?

 

[Sillybilly]

Here's a hypothetical question:

There is a brand of hot sneakers all the kids are dying for. There are two kids who are friends; one is rich, one is poor. The rich kid has 10 pairs of these shoes, and the poor kid has none. They go for a walk together one night. The next day a third boy is missing and it is assumed he was killed for his shoes. His shoes are found hidden outside one of the rich boy's houses, the body found hidden at another of the rich kid's properties. Both boys are arrested and charged with the muder.

In this hypothetical situation, would one naturally assume that it was the rich boy who had come up with the idea because he wanted to have an 11th pair of the shoes? Or might one assume that it was the poor boy who might have wanted the shoes badly enough to kill for them?

I would think if the poor kid wanted the shoes, he wouldn't have left them at the rich kids house, and he wouldn't have planted the body where where it could point to either of them.

 

[Juballee]

I would think if the poor kid wanted the shoes, he wouldn't have left them at the rich kids house, and he wouldn't have planted the body where where it could point to either of them.

I would imagine that the poor kid would think that hiding them at his friend's would make them harder to discover, personally. Rich kid's parents might not even notice if one more pair showed up, whereas, I think that the poor kid would realize soon after, that if those shoes suddenly materialized on his feet, when everyone knew he had none, that someone might have some questions for him?

I also think that if the poor kid thought that the rich kid had some great hiding spots at his place, that he would feel more comfortable hiding the body there than in an area that neither have much knowledge of, personally. Although the same could be said for the rich kid, I suppose.

For clarification, are you saying that you think it would have been the poor kid making those decisions to cover his crime, or that you think that the rich kid was the one who wanted an 11th pair of the shoes?

Who would you say had the greater motive in this scenario?

 

[SnooperDuper]

Why would a rich kid with a zillion pair of kicks want another pair? To customize, to customize and then sell at 100% profit?

Poor kid is regularly selling the rich kid grams of coke for $100...rich kid negotiates, can I get a gram of coke off you? Will you take these shoes instead of cash?

 

[matou]

Why didn't they hide the truck and dump his remains on the six nations reservation like we were speculating at the beginning of this case? Why was this case centered around DM's trailer, his mom's driveway, his hangar and his farm land? Because he is responsible and apparently very stupid. Jmo

 

[SnooperDuper]

Why didn't they hide the truck and dump his remains on the six nations reservation like we were speculating at the beginning of this case?

Because he already had a tool to get rid of bodies, the incinerator; and he actually did want the truck (for parts) so there was no point in discarding it.

Perhaps the two thought they were master criminals that had hatched a plan that was infallible?

Why was this case centered around DM's trailer, his mom's driveway, his hangar and his farm land? Because he is responsible and apparently very stupid. Jmo

Many thought DM ought to be a genius given that he's rich, but maybe he's too smart for his own good and can't absorb new information...e.g., it's not enough to have "no body" these days; to remove all doubt juries expect you to have no DNA and no incinerator as well.

To me the incinerator was a cocky and stupid purchase because if LE ever found the thing, a lot would come back on DM (as it did).

 

[redheart]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that your first guess would be that that the shoes had nothing to do with it, that it was a thrill kill.

If that were the case, do you think that they planned it ahead of time or that it was a spur of the moment decision? Either way, whose idea do you think it was in this scenario, and why?

I'm just going to go ahead and answer the above question specific to the case, instead of in the parameters of your pretend game.

As you know, my response was facetious, as your hypothetical situation doesn't accurately reflect what we know about this case.

I don't think Millard and Smich planned to kill Tim ahead of time, but I'm certainly not sure on that. To really understand what happened, my guess is we'd need to know why they killed Laura. My guess is Millard was the driving force behind that. He wanted to get rid of her for whatever reason, pick one. He enlisted Smich's help, or maybe Smich volunteered. They liked the power, felt invincible when the police didn't even come close to catching them. They either wanted to do it again with Tim for the thrill of it, or the killing and incinerating just came as an easy solution to them in a sticky situation (eg. Tim fights back in the truck) because it had already worked so well once before.

All MOO and allegedly, of course.

 

[Tamarind]

I would imagine that the poor kid would think that hiding them at his friend's would make them harder to discover, personally. Rich kid's parents might not even notice if one more pair showed up, whereas, I think that the poor kid would realize soon after, that if those shoes suddenly materialized on his feet, when everyone knew he had none, that someone might have some questions for him?

I also think that if the poor kid thought that the rich kid had some great hiding spots at his place, that he would feel more comfortable hiding the body there than in an area that neither have much knowledge of, personally. Although the same could be said for the rich kid, I suppose.

For clarification, are you saying that you think it would have been the poor kid making those decisions to cover his crime, or that you think that the rich kid was the one who wanted an 11th pair of the shoes?

Who would you say had the greater motive in this scenario?

Its quite interesting that no-one wants to follow your train of thought. Maybe they don't see where its leading. It is a good exercise in disassociating from the 'crime' and trying to work on the hypothetical and not with preconceived notions and 'evidence'. Good idea Juballee, I just think many may be used to thinking on one bandwidth....

IMO, if the culprit was the poor kid, by hiding the shoes at the rich kids house any suspicion would fall on the rich kid. It also suggests that if the poor kid really wanted the shoes then why leave them with the rich kid? Which brings me to the possibility that a third person took the shoes and maybe had a grudge against either the rich kid or the shoe owner or both.

 

[matou]

The thrill aspect is important. That trailer and harley were stolen just two weeks before Wayne Millard was found dead in his house. There is also much more 'thrill seeking behaviour' we don't know about yet that ties to criminality in this case. JMO

 

[Tamarind]

The thrill aspect is important. That trailer and harley were stolen just two weeks before Wayne Millard was found dead in his house. There is also much more 'thrill seeking behaviour' we don't know about yet that ties to criminality in this case. JMO

Unless we know who stole the trailer and Harley it is irrelevant IMO.

Otherwise IMO it becomes a case of throwing whatever you can at the accused in the hope it sticks. I don't find that approach to be very just or helpful to anyone JMO

 

[matou]

Oh yeah, maybe Noudga did it. JMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

DM trained his buddies to call him Boss. Maybe he was a real power tripper and simply felt pleasure at being so powerful he could make people disappear? Now he's got DP feeding him Napoleon and RP, Sun Tzu. Does that kind of reading appeal to a master personality or a slave personality? Some are born to lead, others to follow. The lawyers are inspired by great warriors of the past because they seek to be masters of the situation. Remember the copy of On War in DM's cell? This is a man who sees himself as master, leader, warrior, not penitent, Christian, slave.

IMO MS is the sidekick.

 

[matou]

On one hand, this murder had the look and feel of something out of the movie Fargo, but a police source said a new TV show , The Following, may be closer to it.

The show depicts a number of people following a leader involved in nefarious activities, including homicide.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/05/16/tim-bosmas-murder-may-have-been-thrill-kill-source

 

[Juballee]

The thrill aspect is important. That trailer and harley were stolen just two weeks before Wayne Millard was found dead in his house. There is also much more 'thrill seeking behaviour' we don't know about yet that ties to criminality in this case. JMO

Can you please explain what the thrill seeking behaviour that we don't know about yet is, and how you know about it if 'we' don't?

 

[matou]

There will be more info coming out about his high risk behaviour, I'm sure of it. He was active on his Steam gaming on the same day he killed Tim Bosma. It was the last time he went on. Communicating with his other murder partner? Getting himself geared up for action? JMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

Anyway, if the poor kid is framing, using and abusing the rich kid, why is the poor kid keeping his mouth shut? Wouldn't he want to dump on the rich kid?

Asked if he provided the “new information” that led to this latest police search of Millard’s farm, he *advertiser censored* his head — asking, “If I’m telling you I’m not talking, why do you think I’m talking to anyone?”

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...y_they_want_to_tell_their_story_but_cant.html

There is still a loyalty between the two. DP was happy to talk of a "framing aspect" initially but DM doesn't have seem to have turned on MS either.