Bosma Murder Trial 04.18.16 - Day 36

[hopingforjustice]

Maybe if LE visited the hangar, word got back to WM by one of the legit employees. IMHO, the MA operation was full tilt forward getting ready for the MRO license to come in. Perhaps WM knew that DM had a little "five finger discount" problem. I can't even imagine how SS occupied space in the hangar, let alone process stolen equipment, knowing that guys like AS and other's WM had put into place were trying to get an MRO off the ground. Still don't understand why SS isn't facing accessory charges- after all, he was working away on TB's truck knowing full well who's truck it was. Hopefully his performance on the stand was sufficient for LE to lay charges against him. MOO

I got sucked into MH tearful testimony. I just am not convinced that he is evil. Wrong, guilty of things..yes. Perhaps have a few charges laid against him. But not a soul who would escalate to the level of DM and MS. AM..same thing.. SS I totally agree with you on. This man knows a whole lot more than is being said and deserves some serious charges against him. Even if he was so enchanted by the DM spell, when his FIL gave him flat out proof that there was serious hanky panky going on, his choice to stick with the Millard family and ditch his own is disgusting to me. I really wish they would call MB to the stand. Her honest testimony could explain (but not forgive) a lot. I hate to say it but If enabling was a crime, I would have to say she would be going to jail with DM. No disrespect to her in any way but I don't think she did her son any favours.

 

[Just4TB]

The Millard phone responds: "I know bud. Next stage of life you're gonna chill with me at riverside.

RSBM
It would be so appropriate to have a Federal Max penitentiary named Riverside... chill in the cooler boys...

my opinion only

 

[newone]

whatever,... they were not LIKELY going to get away if they thought they were a threat to their lifestyle choices. It makes me wonder what LB knew[/B]

bbm Tonight I am wondering about DM's desire to generate 100K per month, and am thinking about theft ring of course, but also those ''photo shoots'' of aspiring young women in the aircraft at the hangar.....perhaps DM's ambition included profiting from that too ...... we don't know what '''drugs''' were involved. Perhaps LB and the other 'ladies' of the inner circle were recruits (or recruiters??) just a wild arsed thought.....looking forward to hearing the other shoes drop with the testimonies of the g/f's.

 

[mimimic]

3500s seems like a typo then. I guess i was thinking of 35 mm camera :/ ...That being said, Say10 responds with "yessir"

 

[SnooperDuper]

Nice catch, this is the first thing that's made MS's paranoia make sense.

It seems he was really groomed and set up to be a fall guy if needed. And only required payment in booze, cigs and pocket money.

DM had both SS and MS totally in his pocket. They financially depended on him: SS for the salary that he used to support his family; MS got crumbs and missions. Other friends were offered $50 or $100 for missions, but SS and MS were living off of DM.

I imagine MS took the blame for the phone being traceable - he seems to be the phone expert I wonder if that's what the "I *advertiser censored**ed up, I *advertiser censored**ed up" was all about. DM being caught first was the worst case scenario because DM paid SS and MS's bills. If I were MS I would immediately fear the other guy whose livelihood depended on DM, SS.

SS knew about both the incinerator and the Bobcat theft/cops, so he was inner circle. The scary thing to me, is how do you ultimately build an effective incinerator without knowing what material you need to burn in it? An SS would know exactly why they needed a commercial product over a home-grown solution, IMO.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Susan ClairmontVerified account ‏@susanclairmont 10h10 hours ago
April 15, 2012: Millard to Say10: "five fingered you some practice ammo." Say10: "I did research. The short ones are old for what u got..."

DM stole some ammo - and then told MS it was for him. Why? MS had the gun? MS needed to practice shooting the gun because he was the intended shooter?

 

[Prairie_dawg]

BBM - Is DM saying that MS needs to start 'working' to offset the cash, cigarettes and alcohol DM is giving him?

I think he sent MS out on a recon mission to photo some 3500s they were hoping to steal JMO

 

[Dion]

Susan ClairmontVerified account ‏@susanclairmont 10h10 hours ago
April 15, 2012: Millard to Say10: "five fingered you some practice ammo." Say10: "I did research. The short ones are old for what u got..."

DM stole some ammo - and then told MS it was for him. Why? MS had the gun? MS needed to practice shooting the gun because he was the intended shooter?

They both had guns. Wasn't it mentioned at one point that DM got the one that MS wanted. They took different size bullets. I believe the "zombie" bullets fit DM's gun. I guess the ones that DM stole, were the wrong kind for his own.

Although I wouldn't be surprised if MS was the shooter, as he was the one in the backseat, therefore best positioned.

 

[chaines]

So now, after today, we all know that SS found the GPS and removed it, he lied on the stand and said DM asked him to remove it and didn't ask questions, he just did it. Now we hear that LE went into the Hanger looking for a Bobcat and SS sends them away stating that he had not seen a Bobcat. Can charges be in SS's future? He clearly knew about this thieving, he knew this Bobcat was hot and he lied to LE. JMO

I think we can reasonably conclude why SS and AJ have no spoken since this all went down.

 

[Typhoo1961]

I wonder if that's what the "I *advertiser censored**ed up, I *advertiser censored**ed up" was all about.

I'm pretty sure that particular phrase might have more to do with them killing and incinerating a guy. MOO

 

[deugirtni]

BBM

This girls testimony is going to be explosive. JMO I have a feeling she should be thanking her lucky stars that she didn't take the "high" (???) road like CN and talked. I truly think she saved her A$$ big time. Now I have a question re: CN. I understand from previous posts that nothing that gets brought up in this trial can be held against her with regard to her trial. Does that mean they can't bring that same evidence up in her trial? or that they can't find DM's guilty (If it is) verdict due to her testimony as evidence against her? If SKS could explain this to me,I would be grateful. TIA

CN is a witness at DM's trial. She *must* go there (she has no choice, as she will have been subpoenaed) to testify as to what she knows, and she must tell the truth under oath (or she will be subject to perjury charges). Whatever she says on the stand as this witness in DM's case, can NOT be used against her in her own trial. It is one of our 'rights' as Canadians to not be forced to incriminate ourselves in our own trials. So if she goes on the stand and says, 'yes, I did that, and that, and that'... those statements admitting those things can NOT be used against her, as evidence, in her own trial, the Crown must find other ways and other evidence to prove her involvement and guilt, in order to present its case for a jury to find her guilty of her own charges in her own trial. Any of the other evidence surrounding her participation, aside from what she herself testifies to, will still be able to be used against her in her own trial if it is relevant there and if the Crown so chooses to use it, it is just that her OWN testimony cannot be used against her in her own trial.

Also, she can't go on the stand in her own trial, in her own defence, and tell a different story (lies to protect herself) than she tells in DM's trial, or she would be subject to perjury for lying. It is that she has the right to remain silent as the accused in her OWN trial, but she has no such right to remain silent in DM's trial. Sorry, I don't know who SKS is, but this is mo interpretation of the following:

CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 [SUP](80)[/SUP]
PART I

CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

....

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
(c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;

....

13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

....

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html

 

[Massasauga Rattler]

CN is a witness at DM's trial. She *must* go there (she has no choice, as she will have been subpoenaed) to testify as to what she knows, and she must tell the truth under oath (or she will be subject to perjury charges). Whatever she says on the stand as this witness in DM's case, can NOT be used against her in her own trial. It is one of our 'rights' as Canadians to not be forced to incriminate ourselves in our own trials. So if she goes on the stand and says, 'yes, I did that, and that, and that'... those statements admitting those things can NOT be used against her, as evidence, in her own trial, the Crown must find other ways and other evidence to prove her involvement and guilt, in order to present its case for a jury to find her guilty of her own charges in her own trial. Any of the other evidence surrounding her participation, aside from what she herself testifies to, will still be able to be used against her in her own trial if it is relevant there and if the Crown so chooses to use it, it is just that her OWN testimony cannot be used against her in her own trial.

Also, she can't go on the stand in her own trial, in her own defence, and tell a different story (lies to protect herself) than she tells in DM's trial, or she would be subject to perjury for lying. It is that she has the right to remain silent as the accused in her OWN trial, but she has no such right to remain silent in DM's trial. Sorry, I don't know who SKS is, but this is mo interpretation of the following:


http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html

So, given that, I assume the Crown will use her in DM's case to provide just enough testimony to help the case, but not too much, so as to evidence starve the case against her in her own trial. Of course it would be in her interest to say as much as she can, but I imagine will be held back by the crown.

What if she goes off script on the stand in DM's case and just starts blurting things out, knowing what she says will now be inadmissible against her in her trial. Can the Crown shut her up?

Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[deugirtni]

I think we can reasonably conclude why SS and AJ have no spoken since this all went down.

Until those things were mentioned in court (as to how much SS knew, and how much he was involved in different things) may not have been known to AJ until now, when it gets reported on in the news? My guess is that SS was simply being a spoiled-brat and just PO'd at AJ for ruining the great gig he had going for himself, and spoiling everything for his best pal too. I don't see how he can say or think that he never thought his friend would be involved in this stuff though, considering everything about the incinerator, all the way back to plans to create a home-made one. I'd be interested to know if his wife still remains in the marriage. Call me nosey.

 

[deugirtni]

So, given that, I assume the Crown will use her in DM's case to provide just enough testimony to help the case, but not too much, so as to evidence starve the case against her in her own trial. Of course it would be in her interest to say as much as she can, but I imagine will be held back by the crown.

What if she goes off script on the stand in DM's case and just starts blurting things out, knowing what she says will now be inadmissible against her in her trial. Can the Crown shut her up?

Inquiring minds want to know!

The Crown can present whatever evidence they have, for either trial, even if it is the same evidence. The only evidence that will be withheld in HER trial, is HER own testimony.. ie what she 'says' on the stand. Only *that* can't be used against her, the rest can. So she can say whatever she wants, and it can't affect her trial.. (she is being judged by judge alone, so she does not have to worry about tainting the jury pool with having read what she said at *this* trial). And the Crown can present whatever it wants too. If there are texts between herself and DM talking about her role and participation in this, and it gets discussed at this trial, the texts can still be evidence in HER trial, but not what her response was, when/if she gets asked about them. It seems like often, accuseds do not testify at their own trials, they have that right... so chances are that the Crown would not have the opportunity at HER trial, to even ask her about the texts. The Crown would only be able to present the texts, and get experts to testify as to their validity, much the same as what is happening in this trial. IF others know about things she said to them, or did, then they can still testify at her trial, it is only her own words which can't be repeated at her trial. moo

 

[SnooperDuper]

I'm pretty sure that particular phrase might have more to do with them killing and incinerating a guy. MOO

That was the plan, not a mistake.

 

[Arnie M]

BBM

This girls [marlena] testimony is going to be explosive. JMO I have a feeling she should be thanking her lucky stars that she didn't take the "high" (???) road like CN and talked. I truly think she saved her A$$ big time. <snip>

Like you , I expect testimony from MM to be substantial and maybe the best so far ..... Maybe she can glue all the pieces together in this case ..... but I also reserve caution regarding how well she will hold up in court because I keep thinking ......... "a girl with any brains would never have a relationship with a loser like Smich " ..... yet she did

Hopefully she can handle defense pounding her on the stand .

 

[Inspector_North]

Maybe if LE visited the hangar, word got back to WM by one of the legit employees. IMHO, the MA operation was full tilt forward getting ready for the MRO license to come in. Perhaps WM knew that DM had a little "five finger discount" problem. I can't even imagine how SS occupied space in the hangar, let alone process stolen equipment, knowing that guys like AS and other's WM had put into place were trying to get an MRO off the ground. Still don't understand why SS isn't facing accessory charges- after all, he was working away on TB's truck knowing full well who's truck it was. Hopefully his performance on the stand was sufficient for LE to lay charges against him. MOO

It does make one wonder what SS knew about the truck? His excuse that DM bought it in Kitchener, and drove it to the hanger sitting on a pail is obviously a lie now that we know he knew about the missions. This has big repercussions, because it suggests he turned a blind eye to a murder and opted to assist covering it up.

SS stripped the truck, ordered the windshield removal kit and still claims he didn't know. What a pile of baloney.

MOO

 

[andreww]

The Crown can present whatever evidence they have, for either trial, even if it is the same evidence. The only evidence that will be withheld in HER trial, is HER own testimony.. ie what she 'says' on the stand. Only *that* can't be used against her, the rest can. So she can say whatever she wants, and it can't affect her trial.. (she is being judged by judge alone, so she does not have to worry about tainting the jury pool with having read what she said at *this* trial). And the Crown can present whatever it wants too. If there are texts between herself and DM talking about her role and participation in this, and it gets discussed at this trial, the texts can still be evidence in HER trial, but not what her response was, when/if she gets asked about them. It seems like often, accuseds do not testify at their own trials, they have that right... so chances are that the Crown would not have the opportunity at HER trial, to even ask her about the texts. The Crown would only be able to present the texts, and get experts to testify as to their validity, much the same as what is happening in this trial. IF others know about things she said to them, or did, then they can still testify at her trial, it is only her own words which can't be repeated at her trial. moo

If she is a cooperative witness and does a good job on the stand, I wouldn't be surprised if the charges against her are reduced or withdrawn. I feel the crown knows she has the potential to be a hostile witness and they're using the charges to keep her in check.

 

[Inspector_North]

DM had both SS and MS totally in his pocket. They financially depended on him: SS for the salary that he used to support his family; MS got crumbs and missions. Other friends were offered $50 or $100 for missions, but SS and MS were living off of DM.

I imagine MS took the blame for the phone being traceable - he seems to be the phone expert I wonder if that's what the "I *advertiser censored**ed up, I *advertiser censored**ed up" was all about. DM being caught first was the worst case scenario because DM paid SS and MS's bills. If I were MS I would immediately fear the other guy whose livelihood depended on DM, SS.

SS knew about both the incinerator and the Bobcat theft/cops, so he was inner circle. The scary thing to me, is how do you ultimately build an effective incinerator without knowing what material you need to burn in it? An SS would know exactly why they needed a commercial product over a home-grown solution, IMO.

I believe the "I *advertiser censored**ed up, I *advertiser censored**ed up" is about TB being shot in the truck. All texts about the gun and ammo seem to suggest DM was setting MS up to be the shooter when missions required it. MOO

 

[Inspector_North]

That was the plan, not a mistake.

Exactly! The theft and murder was planned. Shooting TB in the truck was not.

DM was in a rush to get the truck and have it ready before going to the BAJA. It makes no sense to shoot TB in the truck, even for a psycopath. DM bought the Eliminator to dispose of the victim, why would he want to mess his new truck with DNA evidence? If he was not that concerned about ridding all evidence, he would not have bought the incinerator.

MOO