Bosma Murder Trial 05.09.16 - Day 46

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
andreww said:
I'd guess he is just saying that he wouldn't have been able to lift a 160 lb man in to an incinerator.
Click to expand...

maybe, though I was referring to the shooting. I can't see how an injury to his left shoulder rules out him being the shooter unless he's left handed and even then we couldn't rule it out, depending on whether his left arm was demonstrably impaired (just having a doctor appointment is insufficient IMO unless a doctor testifies so, having examined him previously)

even in in the lifting into the incinerator aspect it doesn't necessarily disprove that he helped (unless a doctor testifies that he was physically unable). Some people can work through pain if they are required/willing/able to do so.
 
Miranda16 said:
I assume that Andrew meant that given that DM could foresee a guilty verdict in advance of the trial (based on evidence disclosure), he should have just changed his plea to guilty (especially if he had no intent of defending himself). I agree and often wonder this about accused criminals; if the case is pretty much a slam dunk, why not plead guilty and save everyone's time.

I remember an interview with the detective questioning Russel Williams. He said that he played to RW's intelligence: "look I have all this evidence against you, why bother denying it". It worked in this case (although RW's wish to shield his wife from a trial was apparently a big factor in his admission of the crimes - if I recall correctly)
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if the Crown's case didn't play out exactly how DM expected. All of legal arguments without the jury present as to what was admissible/etc may not have gone DM's way. Not all of the Crown's evidence was presented, and I'm thinking that DM expected his lawyers to get more thrown out (ie: the letters).....

So, maybe DM looked at the totality of the evidence against him and realized there was really no where to go with a defense and anything that could be said would make it worse. I do find it odd given his personality that he didn't want to put on some kind of defense, but he could possibly be taking his lawyer's advice......after the performance of CN on the stand I don't know that there was much DM could present that would cast any doubt on his guilt. His words in his letters spoke for him. MOO
 
DeepWoodsOff said:
So nothing more on those hoses? Talk about leaving us hanging. MOO
Click to expand...
So many unanswered IMO. Hoses. MB not charged or questioned. Actually why a bunch of them haven't been charged period. I mean they all admitted to drugs and thefts. I don't get it.
 
Miranda16 said:
maybe, though I was referring to the shooting. I can't see how an injury to his left shoulder rules out him being the shooter unless he's left handed and even then we couldn't rule it out, depending on whether his left arm was demonstrably impaired (just having a doctor appointment is insufficient IMO unless a doctor testifies so, having examined him previously)

even in in the lifting into the incinerator aspect it doesn't necessarily disprove that he helped (unless a doctor testifies that he was physically unable). Some people can work through pain if they are required/willing/able to do so.
Click to expand...

Yep they can. Remember, Smich never tried to use the shoulder as an excuse, and still hasn't. It was simply mentioned in a text before the crime. I see it more as a tidbit that we can use to try and figure out what actually happened more than anything.
 
brightii said:
Whether or not TB put up any fight against his assailants makes no difference in my mind about TB being 100% the victim. Whatever the truth is - and whether or not MS tells it and is believed or not - TB's family will NEVER think less of TB no matter how he reacted in the terrifying circumstance he was forced into, IMO. I think TB's family just wants to know the truth of what happened, IMO, and they know already beyond all doubt and always will that what happened to TB was not his fault.

All MOO.
Click to expand...
It was not my intent to insinuate any of this was TB's fault. MS may try to insinuate that he was protecting himself from harm when he shot TB and it was self defence.... Like anyone would believe him!
 
I unapproved my own post about the Rafferty trial so as not to confuse ... because in the Bosma case, we have DM's defence presenting no witnesses/evidence, but with MS's defence doing so. So, not sure how this will play out unless we can find a legal precedent.
 
littlesauce said:
Who else is dying for Mark to get on the stand and tell all?????????
Click to expand...
Unless he pleads guilty I don't see the point. He's even closer to this than CN. For him to pretend he didn't know anything bad was going to happen and had no idea there was a clean up going on is impossible to believe. To go up there and tell lies could do him a lifetime of damage. If he is sticking to his not guilty plea then I think he is already in the best position he could be right now. Why ruin it.
I'm hoping he will plead guilty and tell all.
 
sillybilly said:
I unapproved my own post about the Rafferty trial so as not to confuse ... because in the Bosma case, we have DM's defence presenting no witnesses/evidence, but with MS's defence doing so. So, not sure how this will play out unless we can find a legal precedent.
Click to expand...

I have a sense that Millard's defense wants to have the last word, and by not presenting any evidence they will get it. This also allows them to keep their cards to their chest, slightly disadvantaging the Crown and MS's defense since they have no idea what Millard's defense even is. If necessary, they will also be positioned to react to whatever Smich's defense presents.
 
Ontario Mom said:
Well, wow. DM's defense sure did him loads of good, didn't they?

As for TD and who will be called, I'd love to believe MS has actually told his lawyer the truth about what happened that night and TD is going to put him on the stand to lay it out, once and for all. One would think, if one KNOWS their client is a murdering piece of garbage, they'd genuinely have no defense (oh, hi Millard, how are you?). But one would also think, if their dumb client just happened to be along to steal a truck and never shot anyone, then that defense attorney would want to make sure the jury heard that.

I know it's a lot of wishful thinking but I know many of us here never believed MS pulled the trigger in the first place. I guess we'll find out beginning Wednesday where TD plans to go with this.
Click to expand...

Maybe they will introduce a professional car thief to testify that a change of clothes is always required for each heist?
 
RandomName479 said:
thoughts on this anyone? Why did Dungey get to make clarifications? Was this an opening statement? And I understand emphasizing the shoulder injury....but why the breach of the no contact order with Arthur?


molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 53m53 minutes ago
Thomas Dungey up to make a couple clarifications about evidence the jury has heard. #Bosma

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 51m51 minutes ago
Thomas Dungey clarifying two points to jury: Smich's left shoulder was hurt; Smich had contact with "Arthur" about joint charge they faced.

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 51m51 minutes ago
The first is that Mark Smich's shoulder injury (that Marlena Meneses testified about) was to his LEFT shoulder. #Bosma

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 49m49 minutes ago
Also the 2nd clarification Dungey made (jumping back) is that no-contact order Smich breached w friend Arthur related to a mischief charge.

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 52m52 minutes ago
Dungey is telling jury his client Smich agrees he had a hurt left shoulder in May 2013, & he had a no-contact order with "Arthur"
Click to expand...

Why would a no contact order be a joint charge between MS and Arthur but not an issue between DM and CN? Is it because CN refused it?
 
I think the evidence is ultimately too solid against MS to avoid a conviction for 1st degree murder, but I understand why any responsible defence lawyer has to try in these circumstances. The Crown's case has more or less been the Dellen Millard show and the information that has filtered out via tweets might lead one to assume that the jury must have a more favourable impression of MS at this point than DM. Beyond that I can't imagine they're not annoyed to the eyeballs with all the staring and waving and posturing at this point from DM, and that MS's more restrained demeanour must leave the impression of a more controlled person who is appropriately connected to the seriousness of his circumstances. TD almost has to try to capitalize on any and all of these things for the benefit of his client.
 
Errrr said:
Why would a no contact order be a joint charge between MS and Arthur but not an issue between DM and CN? Is it because CN refused it?
Click to expand...

Probably because Smich and Arthur were jointly charged with an offence and both ordered not to speak to each other, and at the time the order for DM was made CN was not charged with anything. Perhaps this is important to MS because Arthur will be a witness that MS was not expecting a gun? TD may be taking pains to distance MS's contact with Arthur from the kind of contact DM had with CN that was directly intended to manipulate the truth by pointing out that the breach between MS and Aruthur related to a different and much less serious case.
 
JuneBug67 said:
Probably because Smich and Arthur were jointly charged with an offence and both ordered not to speak to each other, and at the time the order for DM was made CN was not charged with anything.
Click to expand...
To further expand as CN eloquently pointed out. It was HIS restriction not hers

All comments are JMO unless stated otherwise
 
CJPRINCESS said:
Not sure I agree with this. My assult trial, the defense called 2 character witnesses on the a-holes defense. Not that they helped him much but that's all defense presented during the trial, not at sentencing. The victom impact statements are done at sentencing though.
Click to expand...

It could be discussed if the accused testifies during the trail and puts forward his character as evidence. He might say, "I'm a really nice guy and I would never do such a crime". Then the crown may respond, during the trial, with a litany of previous offenses. This character evidence is different than having friends testify to nothing other than that the accused is a wonderful person who love dogs.

If MS testifies, he can try to raise the issue of DM being a bad character in order to pass the blame onto DM. If he does, you can be sure that the judge will closely supervise such evidence. Otherwise, character witnesses are part of the sentencing hearing.
imo
 
Inspector_North said:
We know that MS provided a statement of fact that he was on the IT test drive. DM seemed to suggest in his letters that both AM and MS made damaging statements, for DM at least. I wonder if there was more to MS's statement?

There is little doubt MS was there, but exactly where when the murder took place?

MOO
Click to expand...

It's interesting that DM called MS 'treacherous Mark' who got himself arrested by trying to pin it on DM. That could have flowed from MM's police statement, but it is possible that MS made a police statement that we haven't heard about yet. Everybody still remembers TD throwing out that hypothetical bit about Tim getting shot in the neck, possibly from outside the vehicle - which goes to show what an effective technique that can be to plant a thought and prime observers for a particular story or general belief.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 58 more.
Total: 2,402 (members: 59, guests: 2,343)

Online statistics

Members online
59
Guests online
2,343
Total visitors
2,402
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,009
Messages
18,133,208
Members
231,206
Latest member
habitsofwaste
Back
Top