Well unless those are surveillance notes, which they are not, then they are notes of MH's police statements, so of course they would line up with his testimony. BTW, we know that DM tried to influence the witnesses, so I think there's a pretty good chance he succeeded in doing so. MH was said to be sobbing on the witness stand when he testified, but I don't know whether that's because he was being honest or because he felt conflicted...
Bosma Murder Trial 05.12.16 - Day 48
- Thread starter Sillybilly
- Start date
New Posts
-
-
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #196- Latest: girlhasnoname
- Status
Well unless those are surveillance notes, which they are not, then they are notes of MH's police statements, so of course they would line up with his testimony. BTW, we know that DM tried to influence the witnesses, so I think there's a pretty good chance he succeeded in doing so. MH was said to be sobbing on the witness stand when he testified, but I don't know whether that's because he was being honest or because he felt conflicted...
If he's hoping to be found completely not guilty then it would have to go something like that. But I think the jurors are probably aware of his other two charges for murder, so that defense probably wouldn't sound very plausible to the jury. His best bet might be to claim that they planned to steal the truck, MS shot TB which was not planned, and DM knew he could help MS get rid of the body since MS was such a dear friend and he was so upset. That way DM only has to worry about explaining why he has experience disposing of a body later, as if LB's death could have been the result of an accident, and as for WM's death, that's just a big misunderstanding and the cops are just charging him with that murder because of the others, when really it was a tragic suicide just like the cops concluded at the time... Oh and why he had the Eliminator in the first place; he really was hoping to start an animal cremation business with his vet uncle, he just never got around to asking him and decided to buy the Eliminator because SS couldn't build one and there weren't any around to steal.
Really gross thought.... but..... remember DM had asked AM for the keys to the bobcat? Was there a bobcat at the farm?
canadiangirl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,829
- Reaction score
- 94
I noticed just now TD asked specifically "Do you know where TODAY that gun would be?"
MS said no and that's entirely possible if he buried it. Told someone where it was and they went and got it later.... So in fact he wouldn't be" lying". THEN he knew, but TODAY he doesn't know.
All comments are JMO unless stated otherwise
Arnie M
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2013
- Messages
- 2,079
- Reaction score
- 1,920
It may have merit (if MS is telling the truth) .... witnesses in historical murders will comment much the same ...... "it was like something came over him .... he looked evil and his eyes were like black holes .... it was like he was possessed or something."
Anyway , it is a deep subject (the psychopath & evil) but when I read MS' testimony about DM it sounded exactly right (typical) ... hope that makes sense.
When MS testified on the stand, under oath, and said that he did not own a gun..... that would have been a good time for TD to ask him what his rap lyrics are about. I wonder why he didn't, because surely DM's defence will ask him that. moo
canadiangirl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,829
- Reaction score
- 94
It does. And I know but I really don't want that to be DM's defense
All comments are JMO unless stated otherwise
Yes, I picked up on that also, the 'today', and wondered if that was like a 'keyword'. TODAY the gun could be virtually ANYwhere, even if he knows very well where he put it, because he has been incarcerated for 3 years, so.. how could he say anything at all about the whereabouts. I wonder if the answer would have been different if the question had been asked differently, ie, 'can you tell us where you buried it, or at least the general location', or something to that effect.
I am wondering..... you know how the Crown must disclose ALL evidence to the defence well enough in advance so that the defence can prepare their excuses... well... what happens in this case, when there are 2 accuseds, and they are blaming one another.. but the defence is under no obligation to disclose any evidence or testimony that it will be presenting.. but yet, the OTHER defendant is entitled to have advance disclosure?
Also, TD examined MS... and now MS is going to be opened up for his adversarial defence's cross examination, and also the Crown's... many things over time, by different people, have been brought up in court, which were not touched on by TD during his examination in chief. Are RP and the Crown ONLY allowed to cross examine the things which MS already testified about, or are they free to now question him on ANYTHING? As an example, it has been testified to that MS called Arthur his b!tch, but that particular discussion didn't come up, I don't think(?) during MS's examination in chief..;. so would that mean that particular topic is off limits for RP and the Crown to ask him about, or is it just free for all, can ask whatever they want at this point?
Also, TD examined MS... and now MS is going to be opened up for his adversarial defence's cross examination, and also the Crown's... many things over time, by different people, have been brought up in court, which were not touched on by TD during his examination in chief. Are RP and the Crown ONLY allowed to cross examine the things which MS already testified about, or are they free to now question him on ANYTHING? As an example, it has been testified to that MS called Arthur his b!tch, but that particular discussion didn't come up, I don't think(?) during MS's examination in chief..;. so would that mean that particular topic is off limits for RP and the Crown to ask him about, or is it just free for all, can ask whatever they want at this point?
That's a good point, it is peculiar wording for Dungey to use, rather than simply asking "Do you remember where you buried that gun?". I think you might be onto something there...
Looking for holes. Not a big one but I think he is referring to May 8 here:
"Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC May 11
The next day Smich was in Oakville and didn't see Millard, he says.""
and SC "Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont May 11
Millard drops him back off in Oakville. May 8, don't see each other. May have talked to each other."
BUT.....old tweet from SC "Jennings had met Dell's friend, Mark Smich before. Saw Smich at hangar on Wednesday, May 8. Dell Tim's Smich to leave."
and MH " back to May 8 when you saw the truck. Is that the day you saw Mark Smich at the hangar? Jennings says yes sir. ": you're having a convo w DM later that day...you see him look at Mr Smich? J: yes DM glanced his eyes, nodded to him to you know..."
So MS says he didn't see DM May 8 and AJ says they were together.
"Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC May 11
The next day Smich was in Oakville and didn't see Millard, he says.""
and SC "Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont May 11
Millard drops him back off in Oakville. May 8, don't see each other. May have talked to each other."
BUT.....old tweet from SC "Jennings had met Dell's friend, Mark Smich before. Saw Smich at hangar on Wednesday, May 8. Dell Tim's Smich to leave."
and MH " back to May 8 when you saw the truck. Is that the day you saw Mark Smich at the hangar? Jennings says yes sir. ": you're having a convo w DM later that day...you see him look at Mr Smich? J: yes DM glanced his eyes, nodded to him to you know..."
So MS says he didn't see DM May 8 and AJ says they were together.
As I understand it either side can bring new evidence but if they do then the other side gets time to look it over and respond, which is why DM may still testify.
Well they would have to ask questions pertaining to evidence, but I'm not sure if they can ask MS leading questions about being a witness to DM's crime, possibly they can only ask leading questions about MS's charge. But maybe because they are both accused in the same crime that might not be the case. I'm only responding because it's late and I doubt anyone with better information will post until tomorrow...
I just checked phone records and MS phone only pinged in Oakville, so maybe AJ had the date wrong? IMO
Jennings would have seen MS at the hangar on May 9th, not 8th:
"Thursday, May 9, Jennings came back to work. He was in the hangar before his son in law - " Adam Carter tweet Feb 4 2016 9:06 AM
EDIT - Actually Jennings says he doesn't remember if he saw MS on Tuesday or Wednesday, which would have been the 7th and the 8th. He says he thinks it was the 8th.
Incidentally I find Adam Carter's log to be the most reliable, Molly Hayes second, and Susan Clairmont a distant third...
I was reading back through SC's tweets earlier and someone asked a similar question:
Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont
Where did you bury it? "I [buried] it in the forest somewhere late at night." He used a spade "for the garden...and just buried it with that."
Someone replied saying wouldn't Dungey ask which forest.
Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont
We have heard it was a ravine near Smich's house. Police searched, but found nothing.
From Adam Carter's article, Tim Bosma trial: Mark Smich says he can't remember where he buried gun:
Smich said there are "lots of ravines and paths" in Oakville. Investigators did search for the gun, but it wasn't found.
Despite the title, he doesn't go into further detail about MS not knowing where it is.
When MH testified, I took his testimony to mean that *he* thought the '2' meant '2 guns'... but it was DM's defence lawyer, can't remember if R or NS, who put it the other way, 'but that could have meant he was 2 minutes away', or 'that text could have been sent to MH in error when it was really supposed to have gone to someone else'. It was the next thing that DM texted to MH after MH asking if there were guns in the toolbox, IIRC.... albeit DM's response came later on than when the question was asked.
It *is* odd that MS isn't saying, or that TD isn't grilling him more on that, but it is true on the other hand, that even if LE found the gun, it would prove nothing, since there is no bullet to match it to, no body, and it would be meaningless if one or both or none of the accuseds' prints were on it. It would only have been seen as a goodwill gesture on MS's part to tell where it was. And isn't it odd as well that TD didn't grill him on whether there were one or two guns? And also about BD's testimony about the 'I wanted that gun but DM got it and i got a different one, and about the zombie bullets'... all as if this stuff didn't matter at all?
I think RP is going to tear MS to shreds... but at the same time, RP has to be careful, because in doing so, he may also be incriminating his own client even more than he is already incriminated. ... so it should definitely be interesting. moo
Regarding MS's testimony, I believe he said that MS was at the hangar on the 9th, and that AJ got sent home that day, and that DM thought AJ had told police...... but yet.. AJ's testimony said it was Friday the 10th when he was sent home, and that it wasn't until AFTER work on the 9th that he shared with SS that he had received confirmation from Crimestoppers that the VIN matched TB's VIN. AJ also testified that MS had been at the hangar, but I don't believe he thought it was the 9th, I think he thought it was the 8th, but MS stayed in Oakville all day apparently on the 8th. Also, AJ attributed DM sending him home to be due to the police visit while he was running the errand to get wood on the 10th. So did AJ get sent home on the 9th, or the 10th? And if it was the 9th, how did DM know at that point? But it really makes much more sense that DM DID know on the 9th, because the 9th is when he felt it urgent enough to stay up all night to conceal evidence with his lovely girlfriend. Sorry if this has already been brought up.
You're right, it is the lawyer, Sachak, who suggests to MH that it could have meant 2 minutes, but I just looked over AC's tweet log and MH states that DM arrived at his place moments after the text, "it could have been 2 minutes, he says", and MH says that BEFORE AC says that "Sachak is trying to argue that the "2" message doesn't refer to two guns, but to an amount of time.". That means the witness was actually leading the defense, and sounds like collusion between the witness and the lawyer before hand. Why else would MH say "it could have been 2 minutes" before Sachak makes the argument about the 2 minutes... I think MH slipped up, he thought he was helping by mentioning 2 minutes, but he did it before the lawyer brought it up, which was his big mistake.
Err, no, why would you think it's odd a lawyer didn't 'grill' his own client? That's for the prosecution to bring up, and I'm sure they will.
I think he will leave that to the crown, for the very reason you stated; being careful.
- Status