Bosma Murder Trial 05.24.16 - Day 54

[spanishshara]

I was indifferent to MS until now. I put myself in the position of a juror and asked myself that if given the current evidence, I could convict on first-degree. I was leaning towards yes but wasn't fully convinced. Today I think the Crown did a good job of showing that MS knew what was going to go down. The Crown doesn't have to worry about implicating like Sachak did - so I think that obviously helps. Like others have said today, I think a lot of us naturally want to see the good in people. We don't want to believe MS could take another life so easily and effortlessly. A lot of us hoped MS didn't buy what DM was selling and that he wasn't a willing participant. But today was a sad reminder that MS wasn't the innocent man he claims he was. His story never truly added up and IMO today reaffirmed that. At the end of the day, I still believe they both get first-degree. I don't have to know who pulled the trigger to believe they're both equally guilty of taking an innocent man's life.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Did they really say they both shot him?

"The Crown intends to prove that on this date in the late evening hours, Tim Bosma was killed in his truck, shot by the two accused at close range, while on a test drive with his truck; his body then incinerated hours later by the two accused." http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/2016/02/tim-bosma-trial-the-crowns-opening-statement.html

I should have clarified my thoughts. I've always thought the way that was worded implies they are unable to prove which one of them actually pulled the trigger but both are being charged regardless. That's what I meant by that.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

Don't think it matters who shot TB if both were planning to do it.

 

[brightii]

"The Crown intends to prove that on this date in the late evening hours, Tim Bosma was killed in his truck, shot by the two accused at close range, while on a test drive with his truck; his body then incinerated hours later by the two accused." http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/2016/02/tim-bosma-trial-the-crowns-opening-statement.html

I should have clarified my thoughts. I've always thought the way that was worded implies they are unable to prove which one of them actually pulled the trigger but both are being charged regardless. That's what I meant by that.

Me too.

The Crown was right, they can't prove which one shot TB as neither accused is going to confess to being the shooter. The accused have essentially blamed each other and since they were the only two there, we'll never know for sure which one or if both shot TB.

All MOO.

 

[Typhoo1961]

"The Crown intends to prove that on this date in the late evening hours, Tim Bosma was killed in his truck, shot by the two accused at close range, while on a test drive with his truck; his body then incinerated hours later by the two accused." http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/2016/02/tim-bosma-trial-the-crowns-opening-statement.html

I should have clarified my thoughts. I've always thought the way that was worded implies they are unable to prove which one of them actually pulled the trigger but both are being charged regardless. That's what I meant by that.

No matter the wording or who shot who, I think the Crown has proven what they set out to prove.

 

[Abitcountry]

"The Crown intends to prove that on this date in the late evening hours, Tim Bosma was killed in his truck, shot by the two accused at close range, while on a test drive with his truck; his body then incinerated hours later by the two accused." http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/2016/02/tim-bosma-trial-the-crowns-opening-statement.html

I should have clarified my thoughts. I've always thought the way that was worded implies they are unable to prove which one of them actually pulled the trigger but both are being charged regardless. That's what I meant by that.

As to which one of them actually pulled the trigger but both being charged.......a passage from Duhaimes Law online explained
for me .......

[ Quote from Duhaimes Law......"(E)very one who conspires with any one to commit an indictable offence ... is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the same punishment as that to which an accused who is guilty of that offence would, on conviction, be liable." Quote]

 

[DMB]

this is the part I find most frustrating!!! Jury should hear ALL evidence.

He DID buy two guns! MWJ is in jail now for selling him the gun which he used on WM, IMO, then there's the gun used on TB.

 

[spanishshara]

"The Crown intends to prove that on this date in the late evening hours, Tim Bosma was killed in his truck, shot by the two accused at close range, while on a test drive with his truck; his body then incinerated hours later by the two accused." http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/2016/02/tim-bosma-trial-the-crowns-opening-statement.html

I should have clarified my thoughts. I've always thought the way that was worded implies they are unable to prove which one of them actually pulled the trigger but both are being charged regardless. That's what I meant by that.

Sadly we will never know the truth. Ever. But yes - the jury doesn't need to know who pulled the trigger to convict both on first-degree. As Judge Goodman said, law treats direct and circumstantial evidence equally. Circumstantial or indirect evidence is not inferior and is used every day. And IMO there's more than enough of both there.

 

[redheart]

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6...-paints-him-as-anything-but-millard-s-patsy-/

New Susan Clairmont column

 

[Oreck]

I don't think Fraser is doing a great job here.
He should be showing that MS is lying when he says "just scoping it out".
Fraser should be asking MS how they steal a truck with a chipped key, without the key.
How do they turn the steering if it's not straight to get it in the trailer, without the key.
How do they get it out of park so that it will role into a trailer, without the key.
Any of those Q's and a lot more would show that MS was not scoping and coming back later to just grab it.

My opinion only.

 

[Just4TB]

I disagree...
Cross examination that allows the witness to answer with long answers is generally not a good plan.
Fraser is demonstrating his skills in this, asking the right questions (the questions actually are the important statements during cross) and then controlling the answer to yes/no.
MS is essentially forced by his own evidence and testimony, to admit the Crown's case against him is valid. This is how to get a conviction. High respect for Craig Fraser

 

[Ontario Mom]

Don't think it matters who shot TB if both were planning to do it.

While technically no, it doesn't matter, I think for a variety of other reasons there are many who would genuinely like to know the truth of the matter and which one of them actually did shoot Tim. I never did think it was MS and I'm still not convinced MS knew DM planned to kill an innocent man that night and went along with it. If the Crown intends to prove that was the plan as Fraser kept insisting today during cross, that didn't happen for me today.

 

[Just4TB]

I don't think the crown ever intended to prove which of them pulled the trigger.
As Fraser said today, "Doesn't matter whose plan. You were there, you participated"

It would be nice to know, but we never will. IMO

 

[Georgeo]

I am not convinced MS knew all details of plan. But then the thought of him being innocent and truly not aware of the plan is preposterous. This is a guy who lived the drug/theft/gun culture. No respect for LE or laws or human life. Had they not gotten caught I'm sure he would have quite easily forgotten "the events" that occurred on May 6th, 2013. Part of me thinks no person is capable of such violence against another human being, then I think back to all the evidence and witnesses and the lies they all have spun on the witness stand, and I think they are both guilty of murder one, no question!

The missions and blatant disregard for the rules of society is mind boggling. I guess in my insulated world, there are societal norms that one must adhere to. There is the known rules as to what's right and wrong that most of us wouldn't dream of disrupting. We teach our children to be good people and treat others as you would like to be treated.

These two perps must have plugged their ears when those lessons were being taught. I'm not a religious fanatic, but surely in any religion, "thou shall not kill" would be true?

I hope the the jury convicts both of them of murder one.

 

[Abitcountry]

I don't think Fraser is doing a great job here.
He should be showing that MS is lying when he says "just scoping it out".
Fraser should be asking MS how they steal a truck with a chipped key, without the key.
How do they turn the steering if it's not straight to get it in the trailer, without the key.
How do they get it out of park so that it will role into a trailer, without the key.
Any of those Q's and a lot more would show that MS was not scoping and coming back later to just grab it.

My opinion only.

May be no one set it out for him just the way that you did here.....may be he has enough other evidence, I do not know.
But I know this---in 5 short lines you made it abundantly clear to me and I really appreciate that <modsnip>. I get it 100%.....so that's why I couldn't do a damned thing with my car when the battery died (no battery=no response to the chipped key = same as having no key at all). Thanks.

 

[ABro]

While technically no, it doesn't matter, I think for a variety of other reasons there are many who would genuinely like to know the truth of the matter and which one of them actually did shoot Tim. I never did think it was MS and I'm still not convinced MS knew DM planned to kill an innocent man that night and went along with it. If the Crown intends to prove that was the plan as Fraser kept insisting today during cross, that didn't happen for me today.

Not sure how you dismiss a day of testimony as "Fraser kept insisting."

What's your explanation for MS's gun fascination, incinerator research and 3500 mission planning? Multiple examples of all these activities were given. That's the evidence Fraser was insistent about in his cross examination of Mark Smich.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Here's my biggest issue...

MS may in fact be a far more vile human being than DM ever was. He may have been fully aware that the plan was to kill a man & steal the truck. He may have actually been in the truck and pulled the trigger himself, but weaved a completely different story to lay the blame on DM in hopes of receiving a lesser verdict from the jury. And in weaving that story, he has caused a LOT of people (general public comments I've seen here and elsewhere, and likely a few on the jury as well) to have some doubts about his involvement in the actual killing of Tim Bosma.

IF in fact this is the case, the Crown needs to step up and really blast his story to heck and eliminate any "reasonable" doubt. IF they can. So far I don't see them doing that. I know others do, but I'm just not seeing it.

The flip side is, MS may actually be telling the truth about a.) not knowing DM brought a gun, b.) planned to shoot anyone and c.) wasn't even in the truck when Tim was shot. It doesn't mean he wasn't a criminal but if he's telling the truth it does mean he had no part in the planning of or the actual killing an innocent man. If that's the case, then I can't be comfortable with him receiving 1st degree murder for something he didn't do.

I hope that makes sense. It does to me, but sometimes I fail miserably at explaining myself.

 

[torontoguy31]

Not sure how you dismiss a day of testimony as "Fraser kept insisting."

What's your explanation for MS's gun fascination, incinerator research and 3500 mission planning? Multiple examples of all these activities were given. That's the evidence Fraser was insistent about in his cross examination of Mark Smich.

-there are many people who find guns interesting, just because MS steal things does not make him a gun murdering fanatic.
-incinerator research may have just been research for his friend, SS built one - is he a murderer?
-3500 can't argue that, MS admitted to that and proof of him going through with that

to me seemed like fraser was going in circles with his questions but with more emotion behind those questions.

 

[ABro]

-there are many people who find guns interesting, just because MS steal things does not make him a gun murdering fanatic.
-incinerator research may have just been research for his friend, SS built one - is he a murderer?
-3500 can't argue that, MS admitted to that and proof of him going through with that

to me seemed like fraser was going in circles with his questions but with more emotion behind those questions.

YOu are dismissing each piece of evidence individually as opposed to looking at the evidence as a whole. The jury will be instructed to view the evidence as whole.

 

[Inspector_North]

-there are many people who find guns interesting, just because MS steal things does not make him a gun murdering fanatic.
-incinerator research may have just been research for his friend, SS built one - is he a murderer?
-3500 can't argue that, MS admitted to that and proof of him going through with that

to me seemed like fraser was going in circles with his questions but with more emotion behind those questions.

Was SS with DM when TB was shot, burned, disposed of his remains, and truck stolen? If so, very likely.

MOO