CLAIRMONT: Why Tim Bosma died is the weightiest question

News Apr 15, 2016 by Susan Clairmont The Hamilton Spectator

The Crown never has to prove motive.

In our criminal justice system, the prosecution must prove who. And how. And when. And must do so beyond a reasonable doubt.

But a jury can come to a guilty verdict without ever knowing why.

And yet, it is the why that is the weightiest question.

As in, Why was Tim Bosma murdered?

The truck certainly plays a part in it.

The Crown team of Tony Leitch, Craig Fraser and Brett Moodie has, over 10 weeks and counting of testimony, established that Tim was targeted because he was selling his diesel Dodge Ram 3500 pickup truck.

But why wasn't the truck just stolen out of Tim's rural driveway in the middle of the night? And why was it stolen by a seemingly rich guy?

"For the thrill of it," a key Crown witness says.

With that one simple answer, the witness may have brought the 14 members of the jury closer than they've ever been to understanding the motive behind Tim's murder.

Dellen Millard, 30, and Mark Smich, 28, are on trial for first-degree murder. On May 6, 2013 Tim, 32, took two men for a test drive of his truck. The Crown believes he was shot in the truck shortly after they set out and that his body was burned hours later in a livestock incinerator.

Andrew Michalski, a close friend and housemate of Millard's, finished three days of testimony Thursday. He was so tight with Millard that he was initially arrested as Millard's accomplice in Tim's disappearance, though he was never charged. That dubious distinction went to Smich a few days later.

Under cross examination by Thomas Dungey, counsel for Smich, Michalski was grilled about May 4, 2013, when Millard asked for his opinion on who to steal a truck from. "The asshole or the nice guy?" Millard asked him then.

Bosma, no doubt, was the nice guy.

Michalski described being angry at Millard for planning and carrying out the theft because, as the heir to an aviation fortune, he didn't need to steal.

So why did Millard do it? Dungey pressed in a near shout.

"For the thrill of it," Michalski said quietly.

For a heartbeat, the packed courtroom was still. Stunned.

That shocking explanation, of course, makes one wonder about the murder itself. A murder that Smich will likely say Millard did. And Millard will likely say Smich did.

The term "thrill kill" is so offensive, so repugnant that I am loath to use it. And yet …

To think that Tim may have been killed for a truck is difficult enough to understand.

But if he was killed for even less — for someone's sick idea of a thrill — that is beyond reckoning.

Susan Clairmont’s commentary appears regularly in The Spectator. sclairmont@thespec.com

905-526-3539 | @susanclairmont

CLAIRMONT: Why Tim Bosma died is the weightiest question

News Apr 15, 2016 by Susan Clairmont The Hamilton Spectator

The Crown never has to prove motive.

In our criminal justice system, the prosecution must prove who. And how. And when. And must do so beyond a reasonable doubt.

But a jury can come to a guilty verdict without ever knowing why.

And yet, it is the why that is the weightiest question.

As in, Why was Tim Bosma murdered?

The truck certainly plays a part in it.

The Crown team of Tony Leitch, Craig Fraser and Brett Moodie has, over 10 weeks and counting of testimony, established that Tim was targeted because he was selling his diesel Dodge Ram 3500 pickup truck.

But why wasn't the truck just stolen out of Tim's rural driveway in the middle of the night? And why was it stolen by a seemingly rich guy?

"For the thrill of it," a key Crown witness says.

With that one simple answer, the witness may have brought the 14 members of the jury closer than they've ever been to understanding the motive behind Tim's murder.

Dellen Millard, 30, and Mark Smich, 28, are on trial for first-degree murder. On May 6, 2013 Tim, 32, took two men for a test drive of his truck. The Crown believes he was shot in the truck shortly after they set out and that his body was burned hours later in a livestock incinerator.

Andrew Michalski, a close friend and housemate of Millard's, finished three days of testimony Thursday. He was so tight with Millard that he was initially arrested as Millard's accomplice in Tim's disappearance, though he was never charged. That dubious distinction went to Smich a few days later.

Under cross examination by Thomas Dungey, counsel for Smich, Michalski was grilled about May 4, 2013, when Millard asked for his opinion on who to steal a truck from. "The asshole or the nice guy?" Millard asked him then.

Bosma, no doubt, was the nice guy.

Michalski described being angry at Millard for planning and carrying out the theft because, as the heir to an aviation fortune, he didn't need to steal.

So why did Millard do it? Dungey pressed in a near shout.

"For the thrill of it," Michalski said quietly.

For a heartbeat, the packed courtroom was still. Stunned.

That shocking explanation, of course, makes one wonder about the murder itself. A murder that Smich will likely say Millard did. And Millard will likely say Smich did.

The term "thrill kill" is so offensive, so repugnant that I am loath to use it. And yet …

To think that Tim may have been killed for a truck is difficult enough to understand.

But if he was killed for even less — for someone's sick idea of a thrill — that is beyond reckoning.

Susan Clairmont’s commentary appears regularly in The Spectator. sclairmont@thespec.com

905-526-3539 | @susanclairmont

CLAIRMONT: Why Tim Bosma died is the weightiest question

News Apr 15, 2016 by Susan Clairmont The Hamilton Spectator

The Crown never has to prove motive.

In our criminal justice system, the prosecution must prove who. And how. And when. And must do so beyond a reasonable doubt.

But a jury can come to a guilty verdict without ever knowing why.

And yet, it is the why that is the weightiest question.

As in, Why was Tim Bosma murdered?

The truck certainly plays a part in it.

The Crown team of Tony Leitch, Craig Fraser and Brett Moodie has, over 10 weeks and counting of testimony, established that Tim was targeted because he was selling his diesel Dodge Ram 3500 pickup truck.

But why wasn't the truck just stolen out of Tim's rural driveway in the middle of the night? And why was it stolen by a seemingly rich guy?

"For the thrill of it," a key Crown witness says.

With that one simple answer, the witness may have brought the 14 members of the jury closer than they've ever been to understanding the motive behind Tim's murder.

Dellen Millard, 30, and Mark Smich, 28, are on trial for first-degree murder. On May 6, 2013 Tim, 32, took two men for a test drive of his truck. The Crown believes he was shot in the truck shortly after they set out and that his body was burned hours later in a livestock incinerator.

Andrew Michalski, a close friend and housemate of Millard's, finished three days of testimony Thursday. He was so tight with Millard that he was initially arrested as Millard's accomplice in Tim's disappearance, though he was never charged. That dubious distinction went to Smich a few days later.

Under cross examination by Thomas Dungey, counsel for Smich, Michalski was grilled about May 4, 2013, when Millard asked for his opinion on who to steal a truck from. "The asshole or the nice guy?" Millard asked him then.

Bosma, no doubt, was the nice guy.

Michalski described being angry at Millard for planning and carrying out the theft because, as the heir to an aviation fortune, he didn't need to steal.

So why did Millard do it? Dungey pressed in a near shout.

"For the thrill of it," Michalski said quietly.

For a heartbeat, the packed courtroom was still. Stunned.

That shocking explanation, of course, makes one wonder about the murder itself. A murder that Smich will likely say Millard did. And Millard will likely say Smich did.

The term "thrill kill" is so offensive, so repugnant that I am loath to use it. And yet …

To think that Tim may have been killed for a truck is difficult enough to understand.

But if he was killed for even less — for someone's sick idea of a thrill — that is beyond reckoning.

Susan Clairmont’s commentary appears regularly in The Spectator. sclairmont@thespec.com

905-526-3539 | @susanclairmont