Bosma Murder Trial 04.14.16 - Day 35

[JuneBug67]

Just too many little pieces starting to fit together. Chatter about clothes, the bbq, the mission, the generator, JVs truck, etc. On their own they can be dismissed as coincidental, but taken together they are starting to clearly show that the plan included theft, murder and incineration.

If there are reasonable alternative explanations though, they really don't have any more power taken together. Circumstantial cases are built thread by thread, but the threads still have to be independently inculpatory.

 

[andreww]

I still think it's too ambiguous at this point. Juries are typically reminded with circumstantial evidence that if there is a reasonable alternative explanation that benefits the defendant that is the one they have to apply. Like the BBQ chatter. If facts and theories support both the bacon BBQ and the horror BBQ, juries are required to apply the more benign explanation. The same might apply here. Hopefully further data from Felon's phone will make things clearer.

I put myself in the headspace of a juror. Unlike most here I give the defendants presumption of innocence from day one. Yesterday and today's testimony have pushed me over the edge. These guys planned and carried out this murder. I feel, like others have said, that there was more mess than anticipated which necessitated an all night cleanup at the hangar rather than a 3 hour burn at the farm. Things went south from there.

 

[lclabtech]

I still think it's too ambiguous at this point. Juries are typically reminded with circumstantial evidence that if there is a reasonable alternative explanation that benefits the defendant that is the one they have to apply. Like the BBQ chatter. If facts and theories support both the bacon BBQ and the horror BBQ, juries are required to apply the more benign explanation. The same might apply here. Hopefully further data from Felon's phone will make things clearer.

I think you're definitely right that the jury requires more information at this point to convict but I think at the end of the day for all those damning pieces of evidence you have to come up with a innocent explanation for... well, the totality of those explanations has to be reasonable too. I think people (not saying you here) tend to forget that it's reasonable doubt, not any doubt at all.

Really looking forward to the girlfriends' testimony. Perhaps I shouldn't be as maybe they'll be even more willing to be evasive to protect their boys.

 

[JuneBug67]

I put myself in the headspace of a juror. Unlike most here I give the defendants presumption of innocence from day one. Yesterday and today's testimony have pushed me over the edge. These guys planned and carried out this murder. I feel, like others have said, that there was more mess than anticipated which necessitated an all night cleanup at the hangar rather than a 3 hour burn at the farm. Things went south from there.

That is definitely a real, horrifying possibility. I just hope, whatever happened, that there are enough facts to make the truth what they are convicted of. I'm just not sure we're there yet with premeditation. I'm not sure given the high bar of reasonable doubt that we will get there. The Crown's opening statement didn't have a roadmap to premeditation or even seem to imply it indirectly. It may be because whatever ever these *****bags did, the Crown believes the knowable facts will only be enough for second degree murder unless the element of forcible confinement is proven.

 

[palisadesk]

I still think it's too ambiguous at this point. Juries are typically reminded with circumstantial evidence that if there is a reasonable alternative explanation that benefits the defendant that is the one they have to apply.

That can be true for an individual piece of evidence, but when the bulk of the evidence in a case is circumstantial in nature, it is the totality of the evidence that is to be weighed, not the individual pieces separately. Something called Hodges' Rule is to be applied, basically it can be paraphrased as "the bulk of the evidence must be consistent with the accused being the perpetrator, and be inconsistent with the perpetrator being any other person."

You can see a discussion of this precept here:
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/H/HodgesCase.aspx


What we're seeing is the weight of the evidence tipping slowly but surely towards the consistent with the guilt of the accused direction and simultaneously inconsistent with the likely guilt of any other persons (unless one wants to speculate about alien invasions). Some components of the evidence may be discarded from consideration by the jury, individually or collectively, but it's looking more and more as though Hodges' Rule is going to come down on the side of "inconsistent with any other explanation."

Of course the defense could introduce new and game-changing evidence but I'm not anticipating any such development.

 

[raffielle]

I have been following this closely and I have not determined whether or not there is enough concrete evidence to convict these two. Which is so sad to me because there isn't a doubt in my mind that they planned to kill this "nice" guy, burn his body and any evidence and walk away with his truck. The perfect crime in their minds. Only what they planned in their minds and what actually happened was different. More mess (blood) than anticipated, the immediate response by police and media and a host of other mistakes that have unfolded but never thought would due to the first too.

Whatever happens over the next few weeks I hope the jury does the right thing and brings justice to the Bosma family and gets these (can't say on here) off the streets.

I also think that the friends and girlfriends were fully abreast of what went down whether prior to or shortly after.

This of course is JMHO.

 

[lclabtech]

If this was really just an armed robbery gone bad, DMs nonchalant attitude afterwards strikes me as very, very odd. He's just swell? Yup, they got the truck. Cremation device on hand. Goes ahead with pre Armed Robbery plans after **** hits the fan? To paint it? Nah... Something smells. Hope the Crown has more to drive that home.

 

[billandrew]

I've updated the timeline with as many of the new messages as I could. I also added events for May 4, 5, and 11. I will continue to add more info as I become aware of it.

 

[SnooperDuper]

You don't think they were stupid enough to say exactly what they were going to do on texts do you?

People seem to think they were stupid enough to tell AM and MH everything - sure, why not?

(Evidence is generally pointing at these guys being pretty stupid...or at least blunted.)

 

[amis_]

They were discrete....kinda.

They seem to have decided that if they speak in code, nobody will figure it out. But not once have they gone farther than mentioning a mission. Not much detail beyond that.

Not true. MH I believe it was asked what they were thieving and DM had no problem responding through text what it was, for example. MOO. I think these guys are just plain idiots.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[palisadesk]

I have been following this closely and I have not determined whether or not there is enough concrete evidence to convict these two..

You may be right concerning conviction of murder in the first degree. Remembering that it has to be a unanimous decision of all twelve jurors, it's possible that one or several may be concerned the evidence does not show sufficient premeditation to convict for first-degree murder. But I believe the evidence does show that the accused were involved in a homicide, the only issue is to what degree. I would be very surprised if any juror felt that the two accused had nothing to do with the crime. So I am confident they will be convicted, the only question is, of what? So far I believe the evidence strongly suggests that DM is guilty of murder in the first, MS, definitely guilty of second degree and accessory after the fact. If as I suspect DM is a psychopath, he can not be rehabilitated; MS has been a petty criminal and made a bad start in life but it's possible that he could learn a trade in prison and one day be a productive citizen. Psychopaths cannot be helped by counseling etc., they simply become more successful psychopaths. The vast majority of murderers are at low risk to reoffend after their release. So it would not surprise me if we got different verdicts for the two accused. OTOH, I think they both (based on the evidence so far - something could change) are guilty of first-degree murder, but juries are comprised or disparate individuals who weigh things differently and it's possible they won't all agree on "murder 1" for both.

 

[SnooperDuper]

I have been following this closely and I have not determined whether or not there is enough concrete evidence to convict these two. Which is so sad to me because there isn't a doubt in my mind that they planned to kill this "nice" guy, burn his body and any evidence and walk away with his truck. The perfect crime in their minds. Only what they planned in their minds and what actually happened was different. More mess (blood) than anticipated, the immediate response by police and media and a host of other mistakes that have unfolded but never thought would due to the first too.

Whatever happens over the next few weeks I hope the jury does the right thing and brings justice to the Bosma family and gets these (can't say on here) off the streets.

I also think that the friends and girlfriends were fully abreast of what went down whether prior to or shortly after.

This of course is JMHO.

Ironically, we've already had loads of "concrete" evidence, meaning actual things - DNA, fingerprints, blood, an incinerator, the truck and so on.

Now we are hearing witness testimony and that is not concrete at all.

If you can see the full picture now of what happened, why do you think the jury will miss this? Do you think they will think most of the evidence is not good enough?

(And it almost goes without saying that there has been a TON of evidence in this trial - far more than might be called average, and so much that a direct indictment has been allowed.)

I think it was apparent that these guys were going down for this crime very early on.

 

[amis_]

Well yeah, you don't really expect to get dirty on a test drive. But now we have MS and DM going on what appears to be a dry run for the truck theft and DM is asking him to bring a change of clothes. And the next test drive they go on, a guy gets murdered and we have a situation where it makes sense they'd need a change of clothes. It's not a slam dunk but the jury can put 1 and 1 together there, IMO. It doesn't look good at all. It looks like a point towards premeditation.

I don't think it was a test run at all and I think today's texts prove that. MOO. DM messages MS saying it was "mission day" on the 5th. He also asked AM who he should steal from. My personal opinion is that they intended to complete their "mission" on Sunday with IT but something stopped them, whether it was Igor mentioning his ties to the army or not. Other possibilities could be that he was too big to move after being killed, like into the incinerator as we suspected before. I think they brought a change of clothes the following day on TBs test drive and they went through with their (stupid) plan. MOO

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Nosey Parker]

Well someone went to Waterloo to check the bbq. Which one was it DM or MS? I think participating in the IT May 5th showed him what was up. A way to get a feel for it.Big picture it all points to both of them IMO.

While speaking of the BBQ, and whether it was talk of just a weekend 'bacon' cookout, the dreaded 'BBQ' was the one in Waterloo area. The 'bacon' real BBQ was at Maplegate IIRC.

 

[musicaljoke]

I still think it's too ambiguous at this point. Juries are typically reminded with circumstantial evidence that if there is a reasonable alternative explanation that benefits the defendant that is the one they have to apply. Like the BBQ chatter. If facts and theories support both the bacon BBQ and the horror BBQ, juries are required to apply the more benign explanation. The same might apply here. Hopefully further data from Felon's phone will make things clearer.

The texts are direct evidence. We know that there were plans to steal the truck through direct evidence. I don't see that there was any communication about any other plans requiring a change of clothing, that were made and subsequently cancelled. We know how this ended. At this point, we are just connecting a few remaining dots.

 

[Just4TB]

Who's Alex Carreno?

While tendency to think male, Alex could be male or female.

 

[redheart]

Ironically, we've already had loads of "concrete" evidence, meaning actual things - DNA, fingerprints, blood, an incinerator, the truck and so on.

Now we are hearing witness testimony and that is not concrete at all.

If you can see the full picture now of what happened, why do you think the jury will miss this? Do you think they will think most of the evidence is not good enough?

(And it almost goes without saying that there has been a TON of evidence in this trial - far more than might be called average, and so much that a direct indictment has been allowed.)

I think it was apparent that these guys were going down for this crime very early on.

BBM

Yes, yes, yes. I'm baffled when I see people saying they're not sure there's enough to convict. There is way more evidence in this trial than in many, many others that result in a conviction.

 

[JuneBug67]

That can be true for an individual piece of evidence, but when the bulk of the evidence in a case is circumstantial in nature, it is the totality of the evidence that is to be weighed, not the individual pieces separately. Something called Hodges' Rule is to be applied, basically it can be paraphrased as "the bulk of the evidence must be consistent with the accused being the perpetrator, and be inconsistent with the perpetrator being any other person."

You can see a discussion of this precept here:
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/H/HodgesCase.aspx


What we're seeing is the weight of the evidence tipping slowly but surely towards the consistent with the guilt of the accused direction and simultaneously inconsistent with the likely guilt of any other persons (unless one wants to speculate about alien invasions). Some components of the evidence may be discarded from consideration by the jury, individually or collectively, but it's looking more and more as though Hodges' Rule is going to come down on the side of "inconsistent with any other explanation."

Of course the defense could introduce new and game-changing evidence but I'm not anticipating any such development.

It's not about who in this case - we know that. It's about intent and elements of the crime. Individual pieces of evidence absolutely are weighed separately before they can be given weight towards guilt. If alternative explanations are reasonable those explanations must be applied, and that piece of evidence essentially becomes null. Null + null + null still equals null. It doesn't build as you add or multiply more nulls. 'Bring a change of clothes' associated with a related but different event a full day before the murder cannot in my mind rise to a clear element of premeditation when there is no other context and other reasonable explanations.

Burner phone + fake name + hiding your Yukon + not returning the truck is the kind of evidence that builds and leads to a conclusion of a planned theft beyond a reasonable double because each independently implies hiding or deception and no other reasonable explanations exist. Human bones + Tim's blood on the Eliminator is circumstantial, but both compelling and clear. 'Bring some extra clothes' is just not the same kind of evidence. Yet.

 

[MsSherlock]

That can be true for an individual piece of evidence, but when the bulk of the evidence in a case is circumstantial in nature, it is the totality of the evidence that is to be weighed, not the individual pieces separately. Something called Hodges' Rule is to be applied, basically it can be paraphrased as "the bulk of the evidence must be consistent with the accused being the perpetrator, and be inconsistent with the perpetrator being any other person."

You can see a discussion of this precept here:
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/H/HodgesCase.aspx


What we're seeing is the weight of the evidence tipping slowly but surely towards the consistent with the guilt of the accused direction and simultaneously inconsistent with the likely guilt of any other persons (unless one wants to speculate about alien invasions). Some components of the evidence may be discarded from consideration by the jury, individually or collectively, but it's looking more and more as though Hodges' Rule is going to come down on the side of "inconsistent with any other explanation."

Of course the defense could introduce new and game-changing evidence but I'm not anticipating any such development.

Excellent explanation- "the totality of the evidence". I know there are people who believe the Jury needs to have some "concrete evidence"- like an actual high resolution snap shot of them shooting TB or a pic of both of them drawing their plans out on a white board, but that's not going to happen and IMO, it's not needed. At this point, we know the truck theft was planned, we know they took a change of cloths and lined up the incinerator, we know they showed up and went on the test drive, we know they used the incinerator, stripped the truck etc etc etc. Text messages, phone calls, video evidence, dna, pics, conversations- the totality of the evidence is overwhelming and the crown hasn't even got the g/f's up there yet. The Crown has really done an amazing job. I'm expecting the Jury to deliver a pretty fast verdict on this one. MOO

 

[Errrr]

But he was the only one arrested as a potential second suspect before MS was. It isn't like they threatened first degree murder charges on any of the other entourage members. Obstruction charges or lying to authorities was threatened to others but that was it. So IMO, something made him their main interest at that point and I think it was more than guessing.

DM was living cheek by jowl with this guy! It seems perfectly logical that LE think he could have been involved. They did have reports on MS at that time but they were still looking for a third person as well at that time. As someone also said, AM would have had a lot of knowledge of of what was going on since he was a roommate.