Bosma Murder Trial 05.19.16 - Day 52

[Ontario Mom]

I hope you don't think the Twilight Zone remark was directed at you. Your posts are always a pleasure to read, even if I don't agree with them (which doesn't happen often).

I completely understand people not being sold on thinking MS is 100% guilty of 1st degree.

On the other hand, I am completely baffled by people excusing things MS has done, glossing over his other murder charge (because - hey, DM has TWO!), and just generally stretching to make excuses for every piece of evidence against him.

Finally caught up from today, at least until this post.

I admit it felt like the Twilight Zone post was aimed at anyone who doesn't agree 100% MS is straight up lying about, well, pretty much everything. While I still think the MS of 2013 was a vile creep, that would put me in the TZ camp because I don't actually think he's lying about everything.

Much of his testimony comes across as genuinely believable. That whole amnesia stuff about where the gun is, is actually possible. Is it probable? I can't say, but I do know that kind of amnesia is real, despite the fact so many refuse to believe it. So for that reason alone (the fact that it's a real thing that happens), there is reasonable doubt.

If MS was not actually in the vehicle when the murder of Tim Bosma happened, AND he had no idea DM was going to shoot him, I cannot see how he's guilty of 1st degree murder.

I can't really "excuse" anything MS has done since he himself admits he was there to scope out a truck to steal, was a drug dealer, was cruel and violent at least once towards his gf, and was basically a degenerate piece of trash. No excuses there.

I'm not at all glossing over his other 1st degree murder charge but at the same time, no one here has a CLUE what evidence the Crown has on him, in that case. It could be massively circumstantial. I have no idea. No one else does either.

I'm trying hard to focus on what the Crown has on him in this case, and after 74 days (it was 74, wasn't it?) of Sachak's utter nonsense during cross, MS comes out (to me anyway) looking even less guilty of 1st degree murder than he did at the beginning of this trial.

moo. fwiw.

 

[brightii]

I think I must be really old, and old-fashioned, because in another context I could appreciate MS's sarcasm and zingers but in the context of this trial I think it does show MS in a very unflattering light.


I wonder what MS was driving at today when he said, "I was foolish then and I'm still foolish now." I'd use a number of different and more derogatory adjectives that I think would be more suitable to describe MS then and now, but I did glean a bit of truth in this unusual revelation of his self reflection.

All MOO.

 

[Tealgrove]

The crown has to prove that DM and MS committed first degree murder. They do not have to prove exactly where and when. That's a mug's game given there are only two people alive who know the exact circumstances and they have both told very different self-interested stories. The legal experts I've listened to have said there is extremely strong evidence against both of them for first degree murder.

When we see how long the jury's out we'll be able to see if the reaction to the MS testimony seen here was in line with the jury's thinking or not.

BBM

Thank you ABro. I am most interested to see if we are on the same page with the jury. I think it's really hard to get the feel for the testimony on all fronts from tweets. Try as we may, to make sense of it all, I sometimes wonder if we take ourselves down paths we don't need to go because we are missing the full picture.

Are you able to comment on the courtroom "feel" this past week? Tense, bored, angry with the length of the cross etc.

 

[CJPRINCESS]

I consider the following to be evidence against MS:

1) text interchange between DM and MS as evidence:

The message back reads: "Headed to waterloo, figure out BBQ situation for this week." #TimBosma #Bosma Apr 14, 2016

tweet from Susan Clairmont

Wasn't this was right before DM sent messages to DD looking for the generator. And in my opinion you don't use the incinerator to burn paper and electronics. They burned the seats in the field right? you only use the incinerator for poor Tim Bosma.

2) asking for gloves and tape by MS
3) the direction to bring a change of clothes to be evidence. Because it is a lame way to hide you were the two guys on the test drive.
4) the sausages and fireside furniture
5) the celebratory mood the next day (MM has no reason to lie about that does she?)
6) MS only becoming different (fearful, paranoid) in mood later on that week once the cops were closing in (wasn't that the testimony of Daly who said he saw MS daily for two years.).
"It wasn't until after Dell got arrested I noticed a change" in Smich. Apr 05, 2016 Susan Clairmont tweet.
7) someone posted a text from MS to MM when he was picking her up the next morning. It is not in the Susan, Molly or Adam tweets as they summarized the messages together. However I believe (my opinion since i cannot find the source), that it was after MS had arrived and was waiting for MM to come downstairs. Did he then send a message: 'Hey I got my ride'.. as in he earned his caddy?

bbm

Huh? MS texted MM from DM'S phone that he was on his way and when to meet him downstairs. I haven't see a text entered that says "hey, I got my ride" would like to see that of anyone can find and post it.

 

[Errrr]

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 39s40 seconds ago
Sachak now asking where the SIM cards are for the phones. He's done this already. #TimBosma #Bosma

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 30s31 seconds ago
Smich agrees. Dell was under arrest and couldn't pay for phone any longer. Sachak asks where the SIM card is for the Samsung from May 6.

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 15s16 seconds ago
Smich says it was a samsung one, on very left of photo. Sachak asks where the SIM card is. Smich says he doesn't know. #Bosma

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 22s22 seconds ago
Smich again says he doesn't know where the SIM cards are. "You asked me the question the other day sir," Smich says. #Bosma #TimBosma

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 17s17 seconds ago
Where's the SIM card? Smich doesn't know. Without it, police couldn't get info from Smich phone. #TimBosma

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 13s13 seconds ago
"Like I said, I don't know," says Smich. He doesn't know where SIM card is for phone Sachak says he used night of murder. #Bosma

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 49s50 seconds ago
Smich says he had either that phone or another, an LG chocolate, with him on May 6, 2013. #Bosma

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 21s22 seconds ago
Smich would switch SIM cards between phones, he says

Colin Butler ‏@ColinButlerCBC 57s58 seconds ago
This marathon cross examination is becoming repetitive. Sachak is again asking Smich what happened to his SIM card. #Bosma

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 53s54 seconds ago
"Just like we don't have a gun, we can't get any information from [that phone]," Sachak says. #TimBosma #Bosma

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 46s47 seconds ago
Smich says there's no "valuable information" on that phone. #TimBosma #Bosma

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 39s40 seconds ago
The phone doesn't have to be destroyed if the SIM card is destroyed, Sachak laughs

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 38s39 seconds ago
Sachak has been through this line of questioning about the phones before, but is doing it again. #TImBosma #Bosma

Safe to assume the judge has to allow this indefinitely? Don't think he is doing his client any favours....

Maybe Millards lawyers are paid by the hour?

 

[littlesauce]

Oh for crying out loud, someone please make this stop already. Good on TD for trying. How much longer does Goodman have to allow him??

As far as I understand, he can take all the time he feels that he needs. The judge doesn't want to rush him and then file an appeal if the outcome isn't what they expected.

 

[JuneBug67]

There are a few different reasons why a direct indictment could be ordered:

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=...sg=AFQjCNHPAyHJTLxOzk1YklQsaX0J_Ay0Dg&cad=rja

I said "substantial likelihood of conviction", and this (much smarter) document says "reasonable likelihood of conviction", even better illustrating that it should not be interpreted as a slam dunk prosecution.

I wonder if DM's attempts at evidence and witness manipulation was part of the justification in either or both of the DI cases, in addition to the multiple cases under investigation.

 

[JuneBug67]

I think I must be really old, and old-fashioned, because in another context I could appreciate MS's sarcasm and zingers but in the context of this trial I think it does show MS in a very unflattering light.


I wonder what MS was driving at today when he said, "I was foolish then and I'm still foolish now." I'd use a number of different and more derogatory adjectives that I think would be more suitable to describe MS then and now, but I did glean a bit of truth in this unusual revelation of his self reflection.

All MOO.

While the snark does probably hurt him, it's also unrealistic to expect a person to never respond to hour after hour of what could feel like provocation. IF MS is guilty of something less than 1st degree murder I can see him getting a little tired and frustrated of having it put to him over and over again. For that matter, even if he is guilty. I expect a defendant have to have a great deal of restraint, but I don't expect perfect restraint. Sachak is up there trying, among other things, to make him display some kind of negative emotion. It would be weirder if he never did I think.

 

[redheart]

Finally caught up from today, at least until this post.

I admit it felt like the Twilight Zone post was aimed at anyone who doesn't agree 100% MS is straight up lying about, well, pretty much everything. While I still think the MS of 2013 was a vile creep, that would put me in the TZ camp because I don't actually think he's lying about everything.

Much of his testimony comes across as genuinely believable. That whole amnesia stuff about where the gun is, is actually possible. Is it probable? I can't say, but I do know that kind of amnesia is real, despite the fact so many refuse to believe it. So for that reason alone (the fact that it's a real thing that happens), there is reasonable doubt.

If MS was not actually in the vehicle when the murder of Tim Bosma happened, AND he had no idea DM was going to shoot him, I cannot see how he's guilty of 1st degree murder.

I can't really "excuse" anything MS has done since he himself admits he was there to scope out a truck to steal, was a drug dealer, was cruel and violent at least once towards his gf, and was basically a degenerate piece of trash. No excuses there.

I'm not at all glossing over his other 1st degree murder charge but at the same time, no one here has a CLUE what evidence the Crown has on him, in that case. It could be massively circumstantial. I have no idea. No one else does either.

I'm trying hard to focus on what the Crown has on him in this case, and after 74 days (it was 74, wasn't it?) of Sachak's utter nonsense during cross, MS comes out (to me anyway) looking even less guilty of 1st degree murder than he did at the beginning of this trial.

moo. fwiw.

People were horrified (and rightfully so) with CN and her sarcasm, obfuscation, and entire demeanour on the stand. I have seen post after post glorifying MS' responses to Sachak. That feels very Twilight Zone-y to me.

I see people going to great lengths to dismiss evidence against MS and that also feels very Twilight Zone-y.

You can think that my TZ comment is aimed at anyone who isn't ready to convict MS of 1st degree, but that's not what I said or meant, so that's your choice to interpret it that way.

 

[Tealgrove]

Maybe Millards lawyers are paid by the hour?

There was a time when writers, (Charles Dickens and his contemporaries), were paid by the word. Their novels were actually published by chapter. That's why Dickens' novels are so long and wordy. I was going to suggest that perhaps DM's legal team were being paid by the word. :slap:

 

[ArianeEmory]

People were horrified (and rightfully so) with CN and her sarcasm, obfuscation, and entire demeanour on the stand. I have seen post after post glorifying MS' responses to Sachak. That feels very Twilight Zone-y to me.

I see people going to great lengths to dismiss evidence against MS and that also feels very Twilight Zone-y.

You can think that my TZ comment is aimed at anyone who isn't ready to convict MS of 1st degree, but that's not what I said or meant, so that's your choice to interpret it that way.

Respectfully (really), I think the first thing you mention is really more about people disliking Sachak than cheering MS on.

(I've generally not been that impressed with him talking back, but I don't know what expected court etiquette is when a lawyer is trying to get you riled up.)

I don't actually remember if Sachak questioned CN in this way. CN's demeanor was also described as far more disdainful than MS's, but there could be gender bias in play there.

Just giving an alternate view. People are *really really* irritated with Sachak this week. The same response was evident on Twitter today. It's less about MS and more about wanting to see NS "lose", or that's my guess.

 

[brightii]

I just want to say, as someone who has been roundly criticized and shamed on occasion for expressing my opinions, theories and gut feelings about this case and the accused, it doesn't feel good and I hate to think of anyone feeling inhibited about posting their impressions. Not one of us here know the whole truth because, IMO it hasn't been told, yet we all have a right to trust and express our own opinions based on our personal analyses of the crime.

I've been swayed this way and that as the trial progresses and maybe my own credibility is questioned because my opinions are fluid. Tonight I feel pretty certain that both accused are guilty and likely will be convicted, but I can totally see how others come to a different conclusion, or are sitting on the fence with uncertainty about either or both accused. I respect you all and I can't wait until the jury makes its decision. I for one am not invested in being right, I just want the verdicts and when they are finally delivered I will trust that the jury got them right. We all may be in the twilight zone, but that's not our fault - blame it on the accused (one or both) who wrote the strange script for this crime.

All MOO.

 

[JuneBug67]

People were horrified (and rightfully so) with CN and her sarcasm, obfuscation, and entire demeanour on the stand. I have seen post after post glorifying MS' responses to Sachak. That feels very Twilight Zone-y to me.

I see people going to great lengths to dismiss evidence against MS and that also feels very Twilight Zone-y.

You can think that my TZ comment is aimed at anyone who isn't ready to convict MS of 1st degree, but that's not what I said or meant, so that's your choice to interpret it that way.

Aspects of this have come up before, and while I take the point there are false equivalencies I think. MS != CN. Christina Noudga is not a defendant, not facing hostile questioning, is protected under the Canada evidence act and simply being asked to answer completely and honestly about what she knows in the most horrible murder case I can think of in some time. Her obfuscation and arrogance was outrageous and completely contempt worthy in my mind. The situation with MS is completely different, and whatever you think of his guilt or innocence cross examination in this context is meant to provoke, and sometimes he expresses some frustration. It's more likely hurting him than anybody else, while CN's choices could be seen as having hurt the case. In short, I think people understand MS's reactions and find CN's utterly alien.

 

[JuneBug67]

There was a time when writers, (Charles Dickens and his contemporaries), were paid by the word. Their novels were actually published by chapter. That's why Dickens' novels are so long and wordy. I was going to suggest that perhaps DM's legal team were being paid by the word. :slap:

Ha! I actually asked at my book club this week why classics were soooooo long. I thought it was because the pace of life was different and they had lots of time on their hands, or that somehow length was in fashion or associated with quality or something. But I like your answer better!

 

[ArianeEmory]

Ha! I actually asked at my book club this week why classics were soooooo long. I thought it was because the pace of life was different and they had lots of time on their hands, or that somehow length was in fashion or associated with quality or something. But I like your answer better!

(And the more things change, the more they stay the same: those of us with books in Amazon's "Kindle Unlimited" program now get paid per page read.)

 

[JuneBug67]

bbm

Huh? MS texted MM from DM'S phone that he was on his way and when to meet him downstairs. I haven't see a text entered that says "hey, I got my ride" would like to see that of anyone can find and post it.

There was something about a ride somewhere, but I didn't interpret it as anything sinister. Would like to find as well, and reread with Elisabeth's thoughts in mind.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

"Has the jury heard what really happened to Tim?"

http://m.thespec.com/news-story/6563832-clairmont-every-story-has-at-least-two-sides/

Yet another excellent article by Susan Clairmont.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[leafs_fan93]

I just want to say, as someone who has been roundly criticized and shamed on occasion for expressing my opinions, theories and gut feelings about this case and the accused, it doesn't feel good and I hate to think of anyone feeling inhibited about posting their impressions. Not one of us here know the whole truth because, IMO it hasn't been told, yet we all have a right to trust and express our own opinions based on our personal analyses of the crime.

I've been swayed this way and that as the trial progresses and maybe my own credibility is questioned because my opinions are fluid. Tonight I feel pretty certain that both accused are guilty and likely will be convicted, but I can totally see how others come to a different conclusion, or are sitting on the fence with uncertainty about either or both accused. I respect you all and I can't wait until the jury makes its decision. I for one am not invested in being right, I just want the verdicts and when they are finally delivered I will trust that the jury got them right. We all may be in the twilight zone, but that's not our fault - blame it on the accused (one or both) who wrote the strange script for this crime.

All MOO.

Next week will be big. Currently I'm on the "MS not guilty of 1st degree" as I feel like he's being truthful. The approach the crown takes next week will be interesting. If he is being truthful, his story will hold up, if not, it will be lights out.

As for DM, the light there was been out for quite some time.

Will they each have a chance to make a statement before the jury deliberates? Or am I blending American television with Canadian law ? Would be interesting to each what each has to say to the jury, and to the Bosma family before deliberations were to begin.

 

[DMB]

A direct indictment is supposed to be about protecting justice/a prosecution in extraordinary circumstances, but it seems like high profile cases get this treatment disproportionately. They're not to be read as slam dunk cases for sure, just should have a substantial likelihood of conviction because you're depriving a defendant of being able to challenge/test the case against them prior to committing them to trial. While apparent strength of evidence is expected, it's not the reason or justification for a DI.

So how does that work when there are two defendants as in the Bosma trial???? Their clearly isn't sufficient evidence on MS for first degree murder as there is with DM yet here he is? I think that is what has happened with the LB case. Text message history will be presented from both Millards and LB's phones warranting indictment for Millard and then there is MS who has LB's I Pad which they have testified was given to him by Millard. If that is the case, not allowing some of the evidence is prejudicial to Ms's case. Has anyone noticed which defence team raises objections when testimony gets a little hot??? Mark alludes to it saying he's not allowed to talk about it but would if he could and doesn't try to avoid it

 

[spanishshara]

People were horrified (and rightfully so) with CN and her sarcasm, obfuscation, and entire demeanour on the stand. I have seen post after post glorifying MS' responses to Sachak. That feels very Twilight Zone-y to me.

I see people going to great lengths to dismiss evidence against MS and that also feels very Twilight Zone-y.

You can think that my TZ comment is aimed at anyone who isn't ready to convict MS of 1st degree, but that's not what I said or meant, so that's your choice to interpret it that way.

MS has certainly been snarky here and there but as much as I don't like him, at the very least he talked and gave answers. Whether it's true or not is another story (especially his idk answers about the gun) - but CN couldn't even do that and going by the tweets it almost feels like she enjoyed the attention and treated the trial as one big joke. Sure MS is obviously trying to look clean and innocent to the jury but I don't think he's obstructing to the degree CN did during her 15 minutes of fame.

I can't speak for everyone here but I think it's more to do with Sachak's cross vs denying evidence. A lot of his questions and comments were ridiculous - everything from the marshmallow comment to his magical forest. Journalists at the trial talked about the room feeling almost awkward at times with Sachak and even the judge getting annoyed. IMO I don't think anyone is glorifying MS' responses. The context includes Sachak's odd questions, getting dates/names/times confused and purposely pretending he doesn't understand aspects of MS' testimony.

At the end of the day we're all here to investigate, ask questions and offer up our own theories. So I think it's important not to dismiss that either.