Bosma Murder Trial 05.24.16 - Day 54

[Ontario Mom]

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.

First, I wasn't there, I only followed the tweets and that's the way it came across: that Fraser (the Crown) believes MS knew all along the plan was to kill a man and steal his truck. Maybe if I were there, I'd have a different impression. Sometimes I wonder if those who are there understand how the tweets come across without the benefit of body language, tone of voice, facial expressions, etc.

Secondly, I didn't "dismiss" anything. I simply said I wasn't convinced.

Third, I could come up with numerous explanations for the gun interest, incinerator research and truck theft planning. Plenty of folks I'm sure have done all three and it doesn't automatically equal "I'm planning to kill a man". Heck, my own browser history is full of gruesome crime details (mostly thanks to WS but also because of running searches when I read a crime story in the news) so if I was there when someone tragically died, some of that stuff would actually be used against me (no doubt in my mind).

That said, if MS was in on a plan to kill a man, I want the Crown to prove it and erase all reasonable doubt.

 

[Ontario Mom]

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.

Sorry I had to lol. No, none of it's funny but you specifically asked how to explain these individual things and then say "but you're dismissing them individually". I've never followed a court case before so I don't know how the jury is instructed. If the jury is instructed to view the totality of evidence instead of each individual item or testimony, then I'm still seeing reasonable doubt where it comes to MS.

 

[ABro]

First, I wasn't there, I only followed the tweets and that's the way it came across: that Fraser (the Crown) believes MS knew all along the plan was to kill a man and steal his truck. Maybe if I were there, I'd have a different impression. Sometimes I wonder if those who are there understand how the tweets come across without the benefit of body language, tone of voice, facial expressions, etc.

Secondly, I didn't "dismiss" anything. I simply said I wasn't convinced.

Third, I could come up with numerous explanations for the gun interest, incinerator research and truck theft planning. Plenty of folks I'm sure have done all three and it doesn't automatically equal "I'm planning to kill a man". Heck, my own browser history is full of gruesome crime details (mostly thanks to WS but also because of running searches when I read a crime story in the news) so if I was there when someone tragically died, some of that stuff would actually be used against me (no doubt in my mind).

That said, if MS was in on a plan to kill a man, I want the Crown to prove it and erase all reasonable doubt.

I'm talking about the evidence he introduced, the text messages, the photos, the actions that supported Fraser's arguments. The text message about MS's incinerator research has nothing to do with facial expressions. His text discussions about bullets with DM are not about tone of voice. His LOL, Mission Day comments are not about body language.

While you can dismiss each piece of evidence individually, the jury will be instructed to view the evidence as a whole. It may be reasonable to dismiss one or two pieces of evidence but to make your way through a list of evidence, systematically finding a reason to dismiss each piece of evidence is not how reasonable doubt is defined in the eyes of the law.

If you want absolute certainty, beyond all doubt, you're not going to get it. That's not the standard. It's beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm happy to let the jury decide based on the judge's instructions.

 

[ILoveDateline]

-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.

I agree with you about the gun thing. Some people love guns. Most go about it the right way by getting their restricted firearm license. But, one can have an interest without committing a crime. That leads nicely to your next point about SS, while I agree he is not a murderer, I have grown to really dislike his involvement in all of this.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[hellkat2]

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.

Well MS has gone to great lengths in his testimony to remove himself from the truck with DM and TB. You explain yourself really well. But lawyers are restricted in a way that can be very frustrating at times. i do think that premeditation has been established today by the Crown solely on the texts that he focused on in his cross examination of MS. So however way they got to it....they did and I am optomistic.

 

[ABro]

Sorry I had to lol. No, none of it's funny but you specifically asked how to explain these individual things and then say "but you're dismissing them individually". I've never followed a court case before so I don't know how the jury is instructed. If the jury is instructed to view the totality of evidence instead of each individual item or testimony, then I'm still seeing reasonable doubt where it comes to MS.

I asked the question to understand if that was what you were doing. And it appears that is indeed exactly what you are doing. I wanted to understand your reasoning.

 

[mimimic]

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.

not true.

 

[arandomguy]

This texts from a year ago angle is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The texts don't link to this "mission" and the year timeline between them and the murder don't make sense. I have a theory that came to me last week while driving down Oak Park Rd. in Brantford and by the Bobcat dealership where TB and DM's trucks turned around.

I was heading south (the same direction as the trucks before they turned around) with a full coffee in my hand from the Tim Horton's nearby. There is a set of train tracks about 200 meters before the Bobcat dealership. They are rough tracks, and I hit them a little too fast, spilling coffee on my hand. As I'm trying to clean my hand while driving I pass the Bobcat dealership and think to myself that if DM or MS had a gun trained on TB at those tracks with a finger on the trigger, the jolt from those tracks would be enough to accidentally discharge the firearm. It's also possible that there was some sort of struggle and that the train tracks didn't come into play, however they are within 200 meters of the spot that DM is alleged to have "pulled over suddenly".

The crown suggests that this murder was planned and carried out with precision, but the evidence suggests a botched job. If they planned to use the Eliminator at the hangar, why was it at the farm? Who plans to shoot someone while driving in the very truck you intend to steal, blowing out the passenger window in the process? Every minute they are on the road from that point on they are in danger of being witnessed with a shot out window and a dead body in the truck. And finally I can't imagine a plan made in advance involved turning around on Oak Park Rd, and throwing TB's cell phone, complete with battery out the window onto the lawn of a local business. Throwing the cell phone out the window instead of removing the battery is a panic move in my opinion, it certainly wouldn't fall under the category of being planned with "precision".

So they were headed south on Oak Park Rd. with the intention of heading somewhere. By then Bosma is half an hour away from home, so it's possible they were headed back to the 403 and I guess it's also possible they were headed further south down Oak Park Rd. to the trail near the Grand River with the intent of leaving TB there. Either way, something must have changed just before they reached the Bobcat dealership, because why else would they turn around? They then allegedly head back to the farm to get the Eliminator.

I don't know if this theory would change the charge in any way and maybe that's why the crown is going in this direction. However I can't imagine that the jury won't see the disconnect between the crown's theory and the evidence, especially the Bobcat footage and dumped cell phone at Oak Park Road.

Anyway, regardless of whether my theory is close, it's clear to me that the crown is neglecting crucial evidence and I don't know enough about the law to understand if they are doing it to prosecute a 1st degree vs. a lesser charge.

 

[Baaasil]

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.

Yeah, I see a lot of people doing this. This and thinking that "beyond a reasonable doubt" means "beyond all doubt" are the two most common misconceptions when viewing something like this trial.

MS coming up with a *possible* story, isn't enough. To believe his story you have to look beyond a LOT of things:

1. The long documented lead up to the murder with MS being involved with the gun, the incinerator, and a lot of planning with the 'missions'.
2. That he claims something like 4-6 witnesses were lying on the stand.
3. That he can remember every single detail that implicates DM or casts himself in a positive light but not a single other detail.
4. That he went along with the clean up long past the night of the murder, and long past DM's arrest.
5. That he's actively cleaned up any evidence related to him from the murder: his clothes, his SIM card, the gun. All things that if his story was true would do nothing but help prove his story.
6. That his story of this just being a scoping mission doesn't actually make a lot of sense. The guys that showed up to test drive a truck would obviously be prime suspects if the truck was stolen later that night. That they hid their car but not their faces. And so on.

That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are things I'm forgetting.

When taken together I don't see how anybody still has a reasonable doubt that MS was actively involved in the theft and murder.

Edit: The other thing that seems to happen here is that people dislike DM and NS (and especially NS's 'style') and let that influence how they view MS.

 

[Dutchman]

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.

Well said! I feel the same way, some how I was hoping, for him. However, he did show his true colours when he became mouthy with DM s lawyer, he is on trial for murder, he still showed disrespect for authority. Imo. I really wanted to see the good. But, alas it is not to be. Simply put three went on a test drive two came back. Guilty as charged.

 

[ILoveDateline]

First, I wasn't there, I only followed the tweets and that's the way it came across: that Fraser (the Crown) believes MS knew all along the plan was to kill a man and steal his truck. Maybe if I were there, I'd have a different impression. Sometimes I wonder if those who are there understand how the tweets come across without the benefit of body language, tone of voice, facial expressions, etc.

Secondly, I didn't "dismiss" anything. I simply said I wasn't convinced.

Third, I could come up with numerous explanations for the gun interest, incinerator research and truck theft planning. Plenty of folks I'm sure have done all three and it doesn't automatically equal "I'm planning to kill a man". Heck, my own browser history is full of gruesome crime details (mostly thanks to WS but also because of running searches when I read a crime story in the news) so if I was there when someone tragically died, some of that stuff would actually be used against me (no doubt in my mind).

That said, if MS was in on a plan to kill a man, I want the Crown to prove it and erase all reasonable doubt.

I, too, wonder how MS body language reads to the people in attendance & the jury. There is very little said about that. I go back and forth constantly deciding on MS's guilty/foreknowledge. I was so drawn in to his first day on the stand and was eating it up with a spoon. It was everything I wanted the hear. .

I'm talking about the evidence he introduced, the text messages, the photos, the actions that supported Fraser's arguments. The text message about MS's incinerator research has nothing to do with facial expressions. His text discussions about bullets with DM are not about tone of voice. His LOL, Mission Day comments are not about body language.

While you can dismiss each piece of evidence individually, the jury will be instructed to view the evidence as a whole. It may be reasonable to dismiss one or two pieces of evidence but to make your way through a list of evidence, systematically finding a reason to dismiss each piece of evidence is not how reasonable doubt is defined in the eyes of the law.

If you want absolute certainty, beyond all doubt, you're not going to get it. That's not the standard. It's beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm happy to let the jury decide based on the judge's instructions.

So much changes each day but I'm still not over the feeling that got when he first decided to tell his side of the story, I've become almost blind/immune to what's come out in cross. I don't think I'm alone here. This is honestly not meant in anyway to be offensively so please, please, don't read it that way, I think you must be able to see a fuller picture seeing MS in person. Though, it's convenient for me to think my naivety has nothing to do with it. That's why I agree with Ontario Mom because it's really easy to get caught up in his honestly (possible a haux) and dismiss small thing that should be considered because he has a tell that I can't see.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[Just4TB]

This texts from a year ago angle is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The texts don't link to this "mission" and the year timeline between them and the murder don't make sense. I have a theory that came to me last week while driving down Oak Park Rd. in Brantford and by the Bobcat dealership where TB and DM's trucks turned around.

I was heading south (the same direction as the trucks before they turned around) with a full coffee in my hand from the Tim Horton's nearby. There is a set of train tracks about 200 meters before the Bobcat dealership. They are rough tracks, and I hit them a little too fast, spilling coffee on my hand. As I'm trying to clean my hand while driving I pass the Bobcat dealership and think to myself that if DM or MS had a gun trained on TB at those tracks with a finger on the trigger, the jolt from those tracks would be enough to accidentally discharge the firearm. It's also possible that there was some sort of struggle and that the train tracks didn't come into play, however they are within 200 meters of the spot that DM is alleged to have "pulled over suddenly".

The crown suggests that this murder was planned and carried out with precision, but the evidence suggests a botched job. If they planned to use the Eliminator at the hangar, why was it at the farm? Who plans to shoot someone while driving in the very truck you intend to steal, blowing out the passenger window in the process? Every minute they are on the road from that point on they are in danger of being witnessed with a shot out window and a dead body in the truck. And finally I can't imagine a plan made in advance involved turning around on Oak Park Rd, and throwing TB's cell phone, complete with battery out the window onto the lawn of a local business. Throwing the cell phone out the window instead of removing the battery is a panic move in my opinion, it certainly wouldn't fall under the category of being planned with "precision".

So they were headed south on Oak Park Rd. with the intention of heading somewhere. By then Bosma is half an half hour away from home, so it's possible they were headed back to the 403 and I guess it's also possible they were headed further south down Oak Park Rd. to the trail near the Grand River with the intent of leaving TB there. Either way, something changed just before they reach the Bobcat dealership, because why else would they turn around? They then allegedly head back to the farm to get the Eliminator.

I don't know if this theory would change the charge in any way and maybe that's why the crown is going in this direction. However I can't imagine that the jury won't see the disconnect between the crown's theory and the evidence, especially the Bobcat footage and dumped cell phone at Oak Park Road.

Anyway, regardless of whether my theory is close, it's clear to me that the crown is neglecting crucial evidence and I don't know enough about the law to understand if they are doing it to prosecute a 1st degree vs. a lesser charge.

Thanks for the posting, sharing your proposed theory and welcome. There are a few issues I can see with this theory.
Do you actually believe that the Eliminator was bought for garbage? Or, as a backup plan "just in case the gun goes off accidentally"?

Some evidence that was not neglected by the crown...
(1) There is evidence from DM and MS texts that incineration (BBQ) was pre-planned.
(2) There is evidence from DM texts that they were planning an all-nighter if successful
(3) There is evidence from MM testimony that after the all-nighter, both were happy, celebratory
(4) There is evidence from texts that DM said the mission was a success

The above listed evidence opposes the proposed theory, and rather than the crown neglecting crucial evidence, your theory cannot be valid unless this crucial evidence is neglected IMO.

 

[Sillybilly]

Posts about a "third person" have been removed as there is absolutely nothing to support such speculation.

 

[ABro]

I, too, wonder how MS body language reads to the people in attendance & the jury. There is very little said about that. I go back and forth constantly deciding on MS's guilty/foreknowledge. I was so drawn in to his first day on the stand and was eating it up with a spoon. It was everything I wanted the hear. .

So much changes each day but I'm still not over the feeling that got when he first decided to tell his side of the story, I've become almost blind/immune to what's come out in cross. I don't think I'm alone here. This is honestly not meant in anyway to be offensively so please, please, don't read it that way, I think you must be able to see a fuller picture seeing MS in person. Though, it's convenient for me to think my naivety has nothing to do with it. That's why I agree with Ontario Mom because it's really easy to get caught up in his honestly (possible a haux) and dismiss small thing that should be considered because he has a tell that I can't see.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

It's the nature of the adversarial system that you believe everything the witness says until the witness is cross examined and then you believe nothing.

I was quite taken aback by the reaction to the MS testimony because it came after the three months of evidence. I would have understood it better if it came before.

I do think many people believed it because as you say, "it was everything I wanted to hear."

But trials are not supposed to be about what people want to be true. They are supposed to be about what is true.

 

[ILoveDateline]

Yeah, I see a lot of people doing this. This and thinking that "beyond a reasonable doubt" means "beyond all doubt" are the two most common misconceptions when viewing something like this trial.

MS coming up with a *possible* story, isn't enough. To believe his story you have to look beyond a LOT of things:

1. The long documented lead up to the murder with MS being involved with the gun, the incinerator, and a lot of planning with the 'missions'.
2. That he claims something like 4-6 witnesses were lying on the stand.
3. That he can remember every single detail that implicates DM or casts himself in a positive light but not a single other detail.
4. That he went along with the clean up long past the night of the murder, and long past DM's arrest.
5. That he's actively cleaned up any evidence related to him from the murder: his clothes, his SIM card, the gun. All things that if his story was true would do nothing but help prove his story.
6. That his story of this just being a scoping mission doesn't actually make a lot of sense. The guys that showed up to test drive a truck would obviously be prime suspects if the truck was stolen later that night. That they hid their car but not their faces. And so on.

That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are things I'm forgetting.

When taken together I don't see how anybody still has a reasonable doubt that MS was actively involved in the theft and murder.

Edit: The other thing that seems to happen here is that people dislike DM and NS (and especially NS's 'style') and let that influence how they view MS.

Really well thought out and said. It's posts like yours that pull me back to reality and proves my previous post about constantly wavering. Thanks.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[ILoveDateline]

It's the nature of the adversarial system that you believe everything the witness says until the witness is cross examined and then you believe nothing.

I was quite taken aback by the reaction to the MS testimony because it came after the three months of evidence. I would have understood it better if it came before.

I do think many people believed it because as you say, "it was everything I wanted to hear."

But trials are not supposed to be about what people want to be true. They are supposed to be about what is true.

Thanks. I agree except for that I do not believe people, the jury included, can truly put aside what they want to believe and what is true especially when it's not 100% clear. You have the benefit of seeing with your own eyes the demeanour of the witnesses and that must, albeit subconsciously, affect your opinion of the truth. I wish I had the same.

My hubby asked me what is happening with the trial and I told him, every day there is something new. I have my thoughts but I have no idea what the judge's charge will be. That is what will help make it clear.

IMO.

It's the nature of the adversarial system that you believe everything the witness says until the witness is cross examined and then you believe nothing.

I was quite taken aback by the reaction to the MS testimony because it came after the three months of evidence. I would have understood it better if it came before.

I do think many people believed it because as you say, "it was everything I wanted to hear."

But trials are not supposed to be about what people want to be true. They are supposed to be about what is true.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[DMB]

Sorry I had to lol. No, none of it's funny but you specifically asked how to explain these individual things and then say "but you're dismissing them individually". I've never followed a court case before so I don't know how the jury is instructed. If the jury is instructed to view the totality of evidence instead of each individual item or testimony, then I'm still seeing reasonable doubt where it comes to MS.

Not to mention he really did have a dislocated shoulder, it IS possible to lift a man by themselves, MS's story DOES fit perfectly with the evidence the Crown presented, the GSR, though not able to testify exactly where the gun was shot from does point to the driver, again, there is NO GSR or blood in the Yukon. The evidence they do have against him for premeditation could also be used against all the main characters yet they are witnesses for the Crown and all had a lot to lose. AND MWJ in jail for selling a gun to DM for the murder of his father, another gun would mean additional charges for selling weapon for TB's murder, I know I would forget very fast where I had buried that gun. Lots to think about, just because he wears a hoodie, listens to rap and was stupid or naïve enough to manipulated by a psychopath doesn't necessarily PROVE he planned or committed a murder

 

[MorningStar22]

This texts from a year ago angle is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The texts don't link to this "mission" and the year timeline between them and the murder don't make sense.

Snipped for length.

I am still getting caught up today (thanks to the tweeters today!!), but had to post replying to you arandomguy, because this really clicks with me.

I haven't been posting much on here lately because I am really not sure what to think about individual pieces of testimony of late. Kudos to everyone that is able to get their thoughts out in coherent sentences and paragraphs, because I am not there yet (but I'm about to try!)

I think ABro is resonating well with me at this point also, because it is the totality of the evidence that is key here - not debating minute facets of various testimony and evidence. That said, a botched murder is fitting best with my reasoning at this point - for the same reasons you've clearly outlined in your post, and I don't think this will ever be answered fully.

I was also on the fence about MS' testimony and reflecting on that I was also a victim of being hopeful. I can't see a way around his guilt in pre-meditiation, planning, execution and clean-up.

Back to reading.

 

[ILoveDateline]

Not to mention he really did have a dislocated shoulder, it IS possible to lift a man by themselves, MS's story DOES fit perfectly with the evidence the Crown presented, the GSR, though not able to testify exactly where the gun was shot from does point to the driver, again, there is NO GSR or blood in the Yukon. The evidence they do have against him for premeditation could also be used against all the main characters yet they are witnesses for the Crown and all had a lot to lose. AND MWJ in jail for selling a gun to DM for the murder of his father, another gun would mean additional charges for selling weapon for TB's murder, I know I would forget very fast where I had buried that gun. Lots to think about, just because he wears a hoodie, listens to rap and was stupid or naïve enough to manipulated by a psychopath doesn't necessarily PROVE he planned or committed a murder

I went from believing MS was the trigger man and DM got caught up in his mess to believing the exact opposite, even before MS took the stand. I'm coming to learn that MS story is supported by the evidence and vice versa. But what about where evidence is missing? He hasn't said much to explain that because he feels he doesn't have to. But, in this case, lack of evidence isn't beyond a reasonable doubt. IMO. The 3 passes of the TB/similar to TB truck is very incriminating. IMO.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[MorningStar22]

Thanks for the posting, sharing your proposed theory and welcome. There are a few issues I can see with this theory.
Do you actually believe that the Eliminator was bought for garbage? Or, as a backup plan "just in case the gun goes off accidentally"?

Some evidence that was not neglected by the crown...
(1) There is evidence from DM and MS texts that incineration (BBQ) was pre-planned.
(2) There is evidence from DM texts that they were planning an all-nighter if successful
(3) There is evidence from MM testimony that after the all-nighter, both were happy, celebratory
(4) There is evidence from texts that DM said the mission was a success

The above listed evidence opposes the proposed theory, and rather than the crown neglecting crucial evidence, your theory cannot be valid unless this crucial evidence is neglected IMO.

If I may take a hand at responding, because arandomguy's theory sits well with me.... this theory fits with my logic in that the incineration was pre-planned, just the timing of the gun shot was not. This caused a scramble that MS is trying to play off as his "fear and shock" and DM is trying to play off as his "shock and (I don't have a word for it... gusto...?)".