Tim Bosma trial: Dellen Millard left evidence because he didn't plan to kill, lawyer says

Dellen Millard wouldn't have left behind so much damning evidence if he were planning a murder, his lawyer said Tuesdayin closing arguments at the trial of Millard and Mark Smich, bothaccused of killing Tim Bosma of Hamilton.

The crux of RavinPillay's final argument tojurorswas that Millard is an intelligent person, so he wouldn't have acted as he did if he wereplanning a murder, as the Crown alleges. That element of planning is a crucial part of the Crown's case in pushing for a first-degree murder conviction.

"The murder was not planned and deliberate," Pillay said early in his closing arguments. He then spent the day trying to chip away at the mountain of evidence presented against Millard at the trial.

• Tim Bosma trial: The beginning of the end
• Get the latest breaking news on this story. Download the CBC News app foriOSandAndroid

Smich, 28, of Oakville, Ont., and Millard, 30, of Toronto have pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder.

Bosma, who was from the Ancaster area of Hamilton, disappeared on May 6, 2013, after going on a test drive with Smich and Millard in a pickup truck he was trying to sell.

In his closing, Pillay pointed the finger at Smich, saying Millard became an "accessory" after Smich killed Bosma something he says his client didn't know was coming.

"The evidence shows Mr. Millard did not know Mr. Smich had brought a gun with him on the test drive," Pillay said.

Smich described as 'sketchy'

In court's morning session, Millard's lawyerran through a host of things Millard did or didn't do around the time Bosma died.

For one, Millard didn't attempt to conceal himself in any way on May 6 with Bosma's wife,Sharlene Bosma,and the family's tenant, Wayne De Boer, both seeing his face before Bosma took him and Smich on a test drive of a truck he was trying to sell.

"He faced them, he was friendly," Pillay said. "He didn't attempt to hide in the shadows.

Where are the online searches about a murder or cleaning up after a murder?- Ravin Pillay, Dellen Millard's lawyer

"The Crown says Mr. Millard knew he would murder Mr. Bosma ... is this the demeanour of a man who is about to kill another man?" Pillay asked.

Smich, by contrast, was hanging back, and was described by witnesses as "sketchy."

"He was clearly trying to hide something," Pillay said.

Pillay also said the fact Millard told people about his intention to steal a truck, and that he didn't clear his cellphone browser history or turn off his phone, showshe wasn't planning to kill Bosma on May 6.

Pillay even went asfarto question why, if Millard was planning to murder someone, there were no Google searches on his computers about the subject.

"Where are the online searches about a murder or cleaning up after a murder?"

Pillay also argued that if Millard had planned to commit a murder, he never would have brought his dog with him. "Why would anyone bring their dog on a planned and deliberate murder? It makes no sense."

Desperate for money

Millard's lawyerlaid out for the jury his allegation forSmich's motivations to kill Bosma. He said that in May 2013, Smich was in desperate need for money. He was planning to move to Calgary to be with his sister, but needed cash.

"Life for him was bleak," Pillaysaid.

Millard had promised him a Cadillac in exchange for helping out with the successful theft of a truck but there was no urgency to the plan, according to Pillay.

"On May 6, he took matters into his own hands. He brought his gun."

Pillay also zeroed in on the Crown's theory that Bosma was shot and killed in a farmer's field just minutes from his home. If Bosma had been killed there, someone would have noticed and there would be evidence, he said.

"No one heard a thing,"Pillay said. "This deafening silence is evidence that speaks loudly about the implausibility about the Crown's theory."

"Where is the evidence of a shooting in that field? Where is the forensic evidence that a shooting took place in that field? Where is the glass ... where is the bullet?"

Why would Millard buy an incinerator?

Pillay also addressed one of the trial's nagging questions: why would Millard need an industrial animal incinerator?

The jury has heard that Millard told some people he bought it to get into the business of incinerating dead animals for veterinarians, while he told his former girlfriend that he bought it to melt metals related to his aviation business.

Pillay saidthere'sproof that Millard had many "diverse interests," and could have wanted to get into pet cremation.

"They could all be true," Pillay said. He also said that Millard wouldn't have been so open about the purchase of an incinerator if he planned to use it to burn a human body.

"It was acquired out in the open and there was a paper trial created through the company," Pillay said.

"Why would Mr. Millard let all these people see this device if the only reason he acquired it was to burn the body of someone whose truck he wanted to steal? It makes no sense."

Security camera video again a focus

Pillayspent a large chunkof his closing dissecting security camera video that was presented in the early days of the trial.

The security camera video froma business calledSupersucker, which is nearBosma'shome,shows the movement of what the Crown believes wasBosma'struck on May 6.

In the video, a pickup truck is seen going north on Trinity Road inAncaster, Ont., nearBosma'shome at 9:05 p.m., and then going south at 9:15 p.m.

It then goes north again at 9:20 p.m. followed by a GMC Yukon. Video expert MichaelPlaxtonpreviously said the truck was "consistent" with theBosmatruck, and the other vehicle was "consistent" with Millard's SUV.

Pillaytold the jurythatPlaxtonomitted movements of the truck in his original report, andSmichthen "concocted" a story to suitPlaxton'stestimony.

Also at issue is thetimestampon the video.Plaxtontestified that he was told by two sources including a police officer that thetimestampon the video was three hours off.Pillaycross-examined that officer, and said his written notes were not sufficient to prove the amount of time the video was off.

TheCBC'sAdam Carteris in the courtroom each day reporting live on the trial. You can read a recap of his livebloghere.On mobile? View it here.

adam.carter@cbc.ca