That's true. In some aspects of the trial, the things the jury "doesn't know" could actually look more sinister with regards to just this case, however it could also be a big hindrance.
They also don't know why he owned a gun and took pictures of it. However, DM purchased the incinerator almost a year prior and the pictures of the gun were from more than a year earlier. Unless the jury is willing to make the leap that he had been planning this murder for a year or more, and without the Crown being able to show that he lied about why he purchased the incinerator, I'm afraid that whole thing may just be a confusing issue for the jury.
They know he purchased an incinerator in June 2012 through an employee, under the guise of purchasing it for MillardAir. They do not know why, nor what he or the employee told anyone as to the reason why. The Crown was unable to provide testimony as to what he told anyone. So it hinges right now on what SS is going to say about what he was told directly that it was for. Something tells me he's not going to be saying he was told it was for disposing of a body in the barn. So it's probably going to be wide open for the defense to make subtle suggestions as to what it was purchased for. And all the jury has seen is a receipt that shows it was allocated to a utilities/garbage account for MillardAir.
They are seeing pictures of a gun. They can probably reasonably deduce that it was the same gun used to kill TB. Will they make the leap to assuming that because DM or MS brought a loaded gun, that they had both been pictured with, one of them over a year earlier, to steal a truck, that they premeditated a murder with that gun? Or just an armed robbery that morphed into a murder?
And without the background info on the other charges that both are facing, will they be able to see a motive for premeditating a murder?
MOO
Much of the evidence in this case seems to be circumstantial, but man, there is a LOT of circumstantial evidence! And the judge has already advised that circumstantial evidence holds the same value as direct evidence, one is not better than the other. It makes no difference when, or for what reason the incinerator was purchased, nor whether it had ever been used for that type of purpose in the past, and same with the gun. Those things are just piece by piece by piece by piece of evidence piling up to tell a story.
They find an incinerator, and oh look, it has human bones belonging to a male human between the ages of 30 and 40 inside. The incinerator was found on his property, could have been someone else's, except they also proved that DM had purchased it. They find evidence of a blood-letting event occurring inside TB's truck on the passenger side.. they know that TB had sat in the passenger seat. They find a bullet casing that would fit a 380.. then they find pictures showing that DM had in his hand at some prior time, exactly that type of gun. And the evidence just keeps coming.
I am amazed and awed by how much evidence LE has accumulated, and that when pieced all together, it tells a viable story of what could have, or was even likely to have occurred. Neither of the accuseds seem to want to speak in their own defence, so the story line, with its accompanying volumes of pieces of circumstantial evidence, will be all that the jury has to go on. And imo, it is way more than enough.
I guess we won't know for sure whether either of the defendants will end up testifying, but my guess is that they will continue to uphold their respective rights to remain silent, in the hopes that the jury isn't able to add one plus one equals two. Fat chance. They have SO much evidence. I think that one or the other is going to HAVE to testify against the other, if he has any hope of a lesser charge/sentence, but for the sake of not being considered a 'rat' while serving time in prison, that is unlikely to happen. MOO
