Bosma Murder Trial 05.16.16 - Day 49

[andreww]

I was pffft on the thing too. Then I got a little less pffft when it occured to me he could have said 's coming to get me, which would have meant singular and could have been heard and reported as plural by BD. It's still thin, but not yet terminally thin I don't think. No fatal cracks today and without being in the courtroom is hard to measure erosion.

Biggest erosion involved the gun testimony. I Smich were innocent, why not at least offer a suggestion where the gun would be? He's obviously lying and that won't play well with the jury.

 

[palisadesk]

IMHO, it's a fantasy to be thinking that everyone can remember everything to exacting standards- especially when the s$#@ is hitting the fan. I think adrenaline, confusion and a good dose of fear can get things really messed up. During the course of this trial, we've seen witnesses making additional statements right before they're testifying. I honestly believe that none of them remember things as clearly as they think- that's why if you witness something they always tell you to write it down immediately. I somehow don't think that any of these people wrote anything down- so there's inaccuracies and memory lapses right across the board. Just human nature. MOO

Further to that, another thing that frequently happens (in everyday life, as well as in witness testimony, where it is a regular problem) is conflation of different, related memories.

To illustrate, let me refer to a different unsolved crime. When little Christine Jessop disappeared from Queensville in 1984 (story here for anyone who is interested and/or doesn't remember the details: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...l-hoping-for-justice-30-years-later-1.2784486 ) , the initial investigation was, by today's standards, not well done. But, neighbours, townspeople, playmates etc. were interviewed, and a tentative outline of Christine's movements that afternoon was pieced together.

As in most cases, people came forward after the publicity about the missing child to share what they knew, or thought they knew. But there were inconsistencies: reports that Christine bought bubble gum at the store at a certain time; a driver at the light who was sure he saw Christine talking to an older boy (a teenager) on the corner; a couple who thought they saw a child struggling with a driver in a car, and who followed that car for a few blocks because they were suspicious, and so on. Trouble was, in some cases, it appeared (in hindsight) that people had conflated real memories of seeing Christine, or a child similar, but had the day wrong (in some cases) or the time of day, in others. There were similar problems with witness evidence trying to pin down what happened to little Nicole Morin, who went missing in 1985 from her apartment building on the West Mall. It's seems fairly certain that some of the accounts mixed up the day they saw Nicole, or the time of day.

In both these cases (and in many, many more - the Truscott case was full of such problems), witnesses are honestly reporting what they remember, but (hammering my cognitive science research here) because when they say what they saw at the time, when they didn't realize its significance and it wasn't something they paid close attention to, they got some of the details wrong, even if the memory itself was valid.

Witnesses, and the rest of us, are also prone to conflating memories, that is putting together in our recollection two things that actually happened, and that are connected, but not in precisely the way they happened. For example, I might remember vividly a conversation with a colleague and correctly recall the gist of what was discussed, but mistakenly think it occurred at a meeting we both attended instead of in the workplace. I "conflated," that is, merged together, two legitimate memories into one, which normally doesn't matter, but it can be very important if dates/times and locales are critical.

This is something pretty well everyone does, because our brains try to be efficient and put related things together for easier access, like a database. Paradoxically, recalling and relating these memories verbally tends to cement errors in our recollections, rather than remove errors; our conflated memory "overwrites" the original events.

I'm sure some lies were going around, but I expect many of what sound like lies (especially ones, as for example MM's recollection of how she heard about DM's arrest) may better be explained by our tendency to mis-remember such things and/or conflate related memories together.For example, MM may correctly remember seeing something about DM's arrest on TV, also remember having some sort of argument with MS about DM around the same time and put those two together and felt certain it happened on the Friday (IIRC) which most have agreed could not have been the case because the arrest was not on TV that night. She might, however, remember it that way, and be telling the truth in that sense.

Not to say some testimony is not lying, but I think there are almost certainly many errors of memory that are honest. And you can be sure the witness doesn't think they are errors! We rarely notice our own errors in everyday life unless something corrects us, like checking our datebooks or calendars and realizing, oh, that didn't happen on day x, it was day y.

 

[ADAWG]

His story would have much more credibility if it had been told to LE 3 years ago and not after all discovery, evidence and testimony has been presented. Just saying.

MOO

There isn't one defense lawyer who would ever suggest talking to the police in this case and not using your right to remain silent. Also I don't know any person in Smich's situation whether guilty or innocent who wouldn't search for legal advice and representation before police involvement

 

[sleuther76]

There isn't one defense lawyer who would ever suggest talking to the police in this case and not using your right to remain silent. Also I don't know any person in Smich's situation whether guilty or innocent who wouldn't search for legal advice and representation before police involvement

Ditto ... I've never committed a crime in my life (not even a stealing a piece of bubblegum for the corner store), but I'd ask for a lawyer before talking to police and I'd be scared crapless that I would say something wrong that could implicate me incorrectly.

 

[MsSherlock]

Quick poll: Rank who has been the most annoying or disappointing witness, cross examination to date. Please feel free to add to the list

1. SS cross examination by TL
2 CN cross examination by DM Defense
3. MS cross examination by NS
4. AM cross examination by TD

Annoying- definitely goes to NS's cross on MS today. I can only imagine how much more of this we'll be hearing. It's like going for a week long root canal. The most disappointing witness has to be SS with TL. I don't think it was as much to do with what he testified as much as making me realize that there are people like him out there. Working on stolen vehicles and equipment- knowing that that was TB's truck- his whole testimony was disgusting. MOO

 

[iveyguy]

For people who are smarter than I am--why DID those people lie about when they found out DM had been arrested?

My theory is that CN & DM were talking/texting around the time of his arrest (conversations not referenced in this trial as they are evidence in CN's trial) and CN knew first hand that DM had been stopped by police -- and after not hearing from him for ~90 minutes, CN correctly assumed that DM had been arrested (rather than just pulled over for a traffic violation) and sounded the alarm bells. But she wasn't 100% sure of the arrest because she still tried calling his phone about an hour after she "told MS" that DM was arrested. No one was 100% sure he was arrested, but connected the dots after learning that he has been stopped by police and hadn't been heard from since. Therefore the question of "when did X find out DM had been arrested?" is murky... does it mean when did you suspect he was arrested or when did you find out officially? That's why I think no one has a straight answer here.

A quick refresh of timeline to support my theory:
7:35 pm Approx. time Millard's vehicle boxed in by police
8:04 pm Noudga messages Millard: "hellooooo?"
9:09 pm Noudga messages Smich.
9:10 pm Noudga messages Millard: "call me."
9:12 pm Noudga calls Millard. No answer.
9:13 pm Smich (Meneses phone) calls Noudga. Call lasts 245 seconds. Noudga claims he told her, "**** went down."
9:20 pm Smich (Meneses phone) calls Michalski.
9:20 to 10:50 pm Voice calls b/w Smich and Michalski about Millard's arrest, Smich tells Michalski to get drugs out of Maple Gate.
9:22 pm Noudga calls Michalski.
10:07 pm Noudga calls Millard. No answer.
10:23 pm Michalski calls Noudga.
10:28 pm M. Burns calls Noudga.
10:33 pm Noudga calls M. Burns.

Source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hb6kEtpLa8cHCVorBuy4yqfHymGvhfHeM6s8QMWGVW8/pubhtml#

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Not sure if anyone's still around, here's a recap of Adam Carter since lunch.

Jury now being recalled.
by Adam Carter 2:20 PM

Sachak says Smich told Meneses that Millard shot Bosma and burned the body, and that he "is in essence, innocent." "I am innocent," Smich says.

Sachak says it's very clear Smich was shocked about what happened. Smich says he was "absolutely terrified."

Smich says on May 6 he "absolutely scared. I felt that I had no choice and I felt threatened.

Sachak says according to Smich's evidence, he wanted to move away from Millard after May 6. Smich says he was trying to stay away, but not show him that because he was afraid.

Sachak says according to Smich's evidence, the only thing he did wrong was to go there to scope out a truck. "That was the plan," Smich says.

Smich agrees that Meneses wasn't involved in Bosma's death at all.

Smich agrees he's absolutely certain that he was innocent and it's Millard's fault that Bosma died.

"My involvement was emptying out and cleaning out the truck," Smich says.

"May 10, in your mind, Dell is where he should be - in jail for killing an innocent human being," Sachak says. Smich agrees.

Smich says he was relieved that Millard was around, and says Meneses didn't want Millard around either way.

"She would tell me not to hang out with him," Smich says.

Smich was arrested on May 22, alongside Meneses.

"You yell to her, 'don't tell them anything,'" Sachak says. Smich says he also told her to speak to a lawyer first. "I said both those things," Smich says.

bbm

Smich says he was relieved that Millard was NOT around, ....

 

[canadiangirl]

Again, it's a slow steady line of questioning that is intended to show that this guy is lying. I'll bet the jury is already having huge doubts about this guy. I'm sure the testimony is losing something when being translated to the tweets we get as well.

I didn't really see any HUGE doubts today. Maybe there will be an AH HA moment but for me it wasn't today

 

[THXGuru]

Again, it's a slow steady line of questioning that is intended to show that this guy is lying. I'll bet the jury is already having huge doubts about this guy. I'm sure the testimony is losing something when being translated to the tweets we get as well.

Yes agreed. It won't make a difference if MS is lying or not. He has no credibility. 1st degree for sure.

 

[Tealgrove]

I said it before and I'll say it again, I'm not buying what Smich is selling.

I'm weary of the I can't remember's, I was scared, I was paranoid, blah blah blah.

I don't believe for one second that he doesn't know where that gun is. I don't believe it and I think he may have done himself more damage than if he'd just sat there and said nothing; like he was advised in the very beginning.

He needed money for a lawyer huh? Well, 2 lbs of weed sold would get you in the door and then it would be Legal Aid probably from that point forward.

I am so frustrated with these people.

MOO

 

[palisadesk]

Quick poll: Rank who has been the most annoying or disappointing witness, cross examination to date. Please feel free to add to the list

1. SS cross examination by TL
2 CN cross examination by DM Defense
3. MS cross examination by NS
4. AM cross examination by TD

I'm confused here. SS was a Crown witness, so he wasn't cross examined by TL.Do you mean cross by TD? (that was pretty dynamic comparatively). Or maybe the direct by TL? I thought they went too easy on him, myself.

 

[CJPRINCESS]

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 7m7 minutes ago
Sachak: "Did you see any wildlife in this forest? Bear, deer, anything like that?" Smich says no. Says his spade was "average sized."

Wow! Seriously! Where is this guy from? BEARS in Oakville...what a dumb question!

 

[canadiangirl]

I said it before and I'll say it again, I'm not buying what Smich is selling.

I'm weary of the I can't remember's, I was scared, I was paranoid, blah blah blah.

I don't believe for one second that he doesn't know where that gun is. I don't believe it and I think he may have done himself more damage than if he'd just sat there and said nothing; like he was advised in the very beginning.

He needed money for a lawyer huh? Well, 2 lbs of weed sold would get you in the door and then it would be Legal Aid probably from that point forward.

I am so frustrated with these people.

MOO

I think he actually doesn't know where the gun is now. IMO if he actually did bury it, he told someone exactly where to find it and now it's gone gone gone.

 

[JPC]

I'm confused here. SS was a Crown witness, so he wasn't cross examined by TL.Do you mean cross by TD? (that was pretty dynamic comparatively). Or maybe the direct by TL? I thought they went too easy on him, myself.

Yes, my mistake direct by TL

 

[Ontario Mom]

Biggest erosion involved the gun testimony. I Smich were innocent, why not at least offer a suggestion where the gun would be? He's obviously lying and that won't play well with the jury.

The most ironic reason of all: he really didn't shoot Tim and really can't remember where he went to bury the gun.

I'm not saying I believe that 100%, just that it's a possibility. Although I don't believe he shot Tim and never have.

 

[Kamille]

There isn't one defense lawyer who would ever suggest talking to the police in this case and not using your right to remain silent. Also I don't know any person in Smich's situation whether guilty or innocent who wouldn't search for legal advice and representation before police involvement

If his lawyer believed in his story 3 years ago, he would have recommended that he co-operate with and speak with LE, including the truth about the gun, to avoid the 1st degree charge and try to plea out to a lesser charge.

Instead, they waited for discovery and then the trial to tell his "story". That does not indicate that either a) MS is telling the truth or that b) TD acted in his best interests 3 years ago. I personally would go with a).

And I have defended MS in the past. Gave him the benefit of the doubt that he got caught up in something that was DM's plan gone wrong. I was expecting a very truthful "story" from him with a no holds barred cross. Not just a regurgitation of only the facts that are in evidence and a lapse of memory for everything that isn't. His testimony is not working for me. While I think he probably was not the shooter, I think he knew what was going to go down that night and that he was a lot more involved in the planning and the aftermath.

We still have not heard what the dollar figure was that DM had promised him for this mission. MM testified that he'd already received a "down payment" of sorts...of $300. But I believe that she testified that he was expecting more than that. Hence the quick grab for all the drugs after his arrest I suppose? To get his "payment" one way or the other? And this testimony, about an amount promised for this mission, is the one thing that makes me question whether MS may actually have been a "hired hitman" to take care of the truck owner during the theft.

MOO

 

[Gibson67]

There was an added part to this comment i believe>these ____don't eff around.

exactly and I tend to believe Daley over Smich IMO

 

[musicaljoke]

I think Sachak's questioning that involves MS not getting "permission" from Millard or something similar, is to show that MS was not in fear of DM. I think. Sachak really has me scratching my head at times. MOO

I think that Sachak is suggesting that MS didn't need permission, because the gun belonged to MS.

 

[THXGuru]

I'm weary of the I can't remember's, I was scared, I was paranoid, blah blah blah.

O

Totally agree. I think he is probably telling the truth that he does not know where he buried it, he was under a lot of stress and drugged up. so perhaps it could be true.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

According to media he's a great lawyer.

I want to see a pic of him!