Another thing about MS's testimony that I noticed is in regard to the burning of TB's front truck seats. DM brought MS to the hangar on the 9th, but I believe (according to cell records) that it wasn't until midway though the day. MS testified they took the seats to the farm to burn them. Then later, he said they (DM and MS) were taking TB's truck inside the trailer, but forgot the seats and went back for them (to the hangar). So this means that on the 9th they burned the seats sometime later than the middle of the day (but yet smoke was seen before dawn by a neighbour at the farm, wasn't it?), and then even though the seats were scorching hot, they still somehow managed to transport them immediately back to the hangar, where they were when the loaded them into the trailer on that same evening. Does it make sense that the seats could have been handled for transport back to the hangar after they had just finished being burned in a big bonfire? Why did the farm neighbour see the big plume of smoke before dawn if the burning of the seats wasn't done until the 9th? Where were the seats before they burned them, were they already at the farm? If not, then why didn't SS and AJ see the seats with blood on them at the hangar before they were taken to the farm?
Bosma Murder Trial 05.12.16 - Day 48
- Thread starter Sillybilly
- Start date
- Status
I don't recall that it was MH that brought that possibility up first, before NS did, I will have to refer back to the various tweets.
I think it is odd because.. it is like an elephant in the room. TD knows that it will surely be brought up by either RP or the Crown, so why isn't he hedging that off with a reasonable explanation ahead of time? If there *was* a reasonable explanation, why not get that out of the way? Why leave his client open to others' gruelling questions? To me, it doesn't make sense to do that. TD should have thought ahead to every possibility he could think of for asking his client the questions that will have to be asked. moo
Do it, he did. It's a huge discrepancy. See AC's Tweets:
"The text was sent moments before he arrived. "It could have been two minutes," Hagerman says". - Adam Carter Apr 7 2016 9:22 AM
"Sachak is trying to argue that the "2" message doesn't refer to two guns, but to an amount of time." - Adam Carter Apr 7 2016 9:24 AM
You have a point but there is good reason why TD would not want to try to plug every possible hole he could think of, because in trying to do so he may alert the prosecution to holes they weren't aware of.
I think you're right that it'd primarily be a goodwill gesture on MS's part. As to TD not grilling him, he's TD's client and TD is clever, not just with his questions but his timing, what the jury takes home or to lunch/break. RP's need to tiptoe on cross could add to TD's intended result: a jury divided on whether or not MS is guilty of first-degree murder. I don't know what to think but I wouldn't be surprised if the jury finds him guilty of a lesser charge.
In fact, between those two tweets I quoted, is only one other tweet, this one:
"Sachak now talking about people texting a word before they finish a sentence, or autocorrecting." - Adam Carter Apr 7 2016 9:23 AM
And that's totally out of place. It's as if Sachak immediately realized MH screwed up by mentioning 2 minutes, and went off on a tangent on autocorrecting before coming back to the 2 minutes, to try to misdirect. I wish I had been in the courtroom to see Sachak;s reaction after MH said 2 minutes...
It's not just a 'goodwill gesture', its evidence to corroborate his testimony, and failing to do so leaves him looking like he's got something to hide. And I don't see how it would be a 'goodwill gesture' to present a gun in the first place. A goodwill gesture would be if he stole TB's wedding ring and gave it back to his wife, or something along those lines. I think what you're both trying to do is minimize the importance of MS's failure to provide the location of the gun.
We are talking about wayyyy back, when BD said that MS seemed rather normal until DM was arrestd, at which time he seemed paranoid. It was discussed on the stand with BD I believe, that it was because MS believed DM was trying to frame him. So that was within a few days of DM's arrest, long before those letters were discovered, or even written. Supposedly, it was finding the murder weapon in the toolbox which made MS believe this. And Arnie is correct.. around the same time, in the very early stages, isn't that when DP was announcing on the news that he can't get into the framing aspect? Wow.. no wonder MS was paranoid. In MS's mind, he thought his friend had gone nuts and killed someone, and MS had helped him conceal evidence. Then boom, he realized DM was thinking he was getting off with his crime, and putting it onto MS. It makes sense that suddenly MS's demeanor changed, and it makes sense that he didn't want to be anywhere near that weapon. Then much much later, those letters are written by DM, and then discovered by police.. and then given by the Crown to the defence lawyers, and MS sees proof that yes, DM was indeed trying to frame him at the time. It kind of all fits, as far as I can see... moo.
It has been often stated that these reporters cannot tweet every word spoken, some will catch certain things while others will catch perhaps different things, or not as much, or more than another. In looking at all 3 accounts, it looks to me like this 2 minute thing was initiated by NS, and not by MH, although MH agreed with NS that it was possible that that is what DM had meant.
SusanC:
MollyH:
AdamC:
Not only am I certain the lawyers look this forum over every day, or at least make legal secretaries take notes, I also suspect that some of the people involved in this trial who have testified as witnesses are reading and posting here. And I still think that explains some of the weird diatribes I've been reading here.
I believe that NS wanted the jury to believe anything BUT that DM meant there were 2 guns in the toolbox, in fact I'm sure he would prefer the jury believe there were zero guns in the toolbox, and that MS was already in possession of the gun at that time, since I believe DM's defence is trying to pin the gun and the pulling of the trigger onto MS. In that case, it would not make sense for DM to have the gun at all since the whole thing was MS's gig. moo
I think if you look back to perhaps *both* AJ's and SS's testimony, the days were 'off'. From memory it was both of them, but I could be mistaken. I can't remember what the discrepancies were, but I do remember that I did notice some, and perhaps that is what I noticed, because I noticed that the cellphone records showed and stated that MS had stayed in Oakville that day. It also doesn't add up as far as AJ's and SS's testimony that DM didn't know the police were onto him until the Friday morning when they showed up at the hangar, since DM had gone to great lengths on the day and all night before that, to conceal piles of evidence.. he also cancelled the paint job appointment on that day. How did DM know it was imperative that he do those things at that time? At the time, I attributed AJ's confusions in days to the fact that he was told not to come to work on the Tuesday, and it probably screwed up his sense of time/dates. But I think it also could have been more than that because I think that many people in this case have things to hide and we may not be hearing the 'whole truth' from them. JMO
OK I've thought this over and I realize that I'm being unreasonable. Maybe it's impossible not to be biased in some way, or probably it doesn't matter anyway. So I apologize for 'getting personal', but I don't really understand the difference between disagreement and bickering. I've considered that some of the people I think are acting 'biased' may simply be taking the 'innocent until proven guilty' concept as an obligation to actively find ways of innocence while my method of 'sleuthing' is based on always trying to pick apart testimony to find the problems in it. Those who focus on how it all 'fits together' seem like they're just glossing over the pieces that don't quite fit. But of course that is just a different method of forming one's opinion and I am prepared to respect that.
My case, which I give you credit for instigating the discovery of, is that MH said 2 minutes first. AC quotes him directly, and I believe that MH made a mistake and was leading the defense lawyer which is a pretty big deal, if that was the case. It's fine if you're not on board with this opinion, but the tweet timeline shows it to be the case. Yes, I realize tweet timelines from court reporters are not forensic quality evidence, but I think it's pretty obvious. If you don't want to take partial credit for this discovery that's OK, I will continue to bring it up whenever I see anyone make statements about the 2 text being unequivocally about minutes as I feel it's a fairly important detail. I think MH is probably reading this right now and crapping his pants realizing someone noticed his screw-up, and is now publicizing it.
D
Deleted member 102539
Guest
I think that text refers to 2 minutes. He's driving, so he can't easily text, and MH lives with his parents and it's the middle of the night. Millard can't knock on the door and he doesn't want to be seen, so he sends the 2 minute warning hoping MH will be waiting outside for him.
- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 39,400
- Reaction score
- 117,681
This thread is now closed. Please continue discussion at Weekend Discussion #14
- Status