Bosma Murder Trial 05.24.16 - Day 54

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
NoodlesMcgee said:
Would be interesting to see if MS clothes are changed in the hanger video versus when they picked up MM. Of course they could have changed before the hanger video...
Click to expand...

Some of us compared the clothes in both videos in the past. I won't speak for others but I'm certain they are the same. The lighting affected the look a bit, but I feel the pocket was hanging in the same place, etc. I believe a change of clothes from red hoodie occurred before the hangar video. IMO
 
To MS believers or at least those who have doubt about his guilt - why do they need to test drive the cars at all if they weren't planning to murder. They could call about the gps (or shine a flashlight and look in the window). There is no need at all to test drive a car if you are going to steal it unless you are trying to become the obvious suspect in stealing the car.
 
ABro said:
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.
Click to expand...

My conclusion on MS is based on everything as a whole. I can see how he planned a theft and AATF but as a whole there is not enough to easily say murder one.

moo
 
Knowing in the back of my mind that MS and DM have another murder charge and trial coming (2 for DM), it makes it easier to see how those texts spanning almost a full year appear more sinister than they possibly are. And with the knowledge of the prior cases, it certainly makes MS out to be an active participant rather than an unsuspecting patsy. If the other two cases weren't on the books, i'm not so sure that I'd find the Crown's case so completely convincing with direct and circumstantial evidence that MS was in the truck at the time of the shooting. The jury isn't supposed to take the other charges into account and the Crown (and reporters) has/have done an amazing job ensuring not one iota of info about those two PREVIOUS cases have made it into the public's eye via this trial. I'm also certain that once the publication ban has been lifted, we will hear a great deal more about what the Crown wasn't able to submit for evidence, much like in the Michael Rafferty case.

I wonder what the reasoning was for having this trial first? Was it because there is more direct and circumstantial evidence and greater likelihood of conviction?
 
Well i am not sure anyone over 10 years old barely awake in the morning of a planned fireworks evening, shows that much enthusiasm. I kind of want to know who did the shooting too, but I think these two where as "thick as thieves".
 
ABro said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fully agree! I'd have loved to hear this trial backwards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I think I'm glad I've never been called for jury duty. I'm too compartmental and would actually take every piece of evidence and examine it in light of the whole. Apparently you're not supposed to do that.

In any case, I'm 100% open to seeing the Crown prove it's case against both of them, and 100% in favor of justice for the Bosma family. I just want it to be genuine justice.
 
Baaasil said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not everyone is emotionally involved with this case or have any bias towards MS or DM. Or that we are just looking for the good in people. Just because some of us don't agree with the bandwagon or how a lawyer questions does not mean we favor one defendant over the other <modsnip> If you have to look beyond what has been presented to come to your conclusion then clearly what has been presented is not enough to convict.

1. not one text said anything about murder, only truck theft. Its one picture of a MS with a gun...no evidence to show he is the owner. where there has been evidence to show DM purchased a gun. SS built a homade incinerator, is he a murderer? previous thefts does not make him a murderer or proof he was in the truck at the time of the murder.
2. everyone here agreed before that every witness has lied and now thats changed. claiming ppl lie does not show or proof pre meditated murder or place him in the truck at the time of the murder.
3. nothing stands out except a few things that was discussed...location of the gun...if found today does not proof he was there at the time of the murder. the video of the trucks driving by - again does not proof he was there at time of the murder.
4. for that he deserves AATF, which he admitted too.
5. u mentioned that in question 4 already, finding his clothes does not proof he was in the truck, there is so much text evidence already and none of it mentioned murder or kidnapping or hurting a victim or even a victim involved so I cant bring myself to assume the missing sim card has 100% proof he was in the truck, the gun does not proof he was in the truck. all together is not enough for murder one.
6. never heard MS outline the whole scoping part, as of now there is now explanation to what was going to happen at the end of the test drive..how they would part ways with TB. could be a simple explanation but we dont know and because of that does not proof he was in the truck at the time of the murder. hide the yukon, wear dark clothes gives LE much less of a lead...LE would not pull cell tower info over a truck theft.

all together does not proof he was in the truck.

of course all mho
 
puppyraiser said:
Knowing in the back of my mind that MS and DM have another murder charge and trial coming (2 for DM), it makes it easier to see how those texts spanning almost a full year appear more sinister than they possibly are. And with the knowledge of the prior cases, it certainly makes MS out to be an active participant rather than an unsuspecting patsy. If the other two cases weren't on the books, i'm not so sure that I'd find the Crown's case so completely convincing with direct and circumstantial evidence that MS was in the truck at the time of the shooting. The jury isn't supposed to take the other charges into account and the Crown (and reporters) has/have done an amazing job ensuring not one iota of info about those two PREVIOUS cases have made it into the public's eye via this trial. I'm also certain that once the publication ban has been lifted, we will hear a great deal more about what the Crown wasn't able to submit for evidence, much like in the Michael Rafferty case.

I wonder what the reasoning was for having this trial first? Was it because there is more direct and circumstantial evidence and greater likelihood of conviction?
Click to expand...


BBM

It is my understanding that the Crown does not have to prove that MS was in the truck when Tim was shot ... Only that together MS and DM planned this horrific incomprehensible mission, or, that in commission of their plan, Tim was forcibly confined (wasn't free to leave at any time). (I think that the latter is blatantly obvious. As well, I personally believe that premeditation for DM and MS has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, FWIW.)

IMHO the Crown will never be able to provide answers to everyone's questions ... It would be impossible. I doubt that there has ever been a criminal trial in the history of the world in which every single factual detail of a crime has been revealed.

To be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is NOT to be found guilty by an absolute certainty, but more than "probably guilty", based upon the totality of all the evidence that has been presented to the jury.

The jurors will have Justice Goodman's instructions and their own common sense to guide them.


MOO







Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I am really, really, really glad i'm not on this jury. Like some other posters, I am not sure I am seeing first degree for MS beyond a reasonable doubt. Because as I understand the law (and I welcome corrections here), for MS to be found guilty of 1st degree he had to know about the murder beforehand (not just know the plan to steal the truck)? Or he could be found guilty if he was involved in forcibly confining TB and TB was killed during that forcible confinement? That is my understanding of first degree in this case.

What would he be legally and technically guilty of if he didn't know of the plan to murder TB and wasn't in the truck when TB was shot?

I haven't had the "aha" moment I was hoping for. Leitch is starting to chip away at MS, and IMO was much more effective than NS (I understand NS had limitations because he could implicate his client).

This seems to have become a polarizing discussion. I fully admit I can understand how people are seeing MS as guilty. I welcome the discussion from both sides.....and I hope that before the end of the trial the evidence is so convincing that I am firmly planted on one side of the fence or the other. MOO
 
torontoguy31 said:
Not everyone is emotionally involved with this case or have any bias towards MS or DM. Or that we are just looking for the good in people. Just because some of us don't agree with the bandwagon or how a lawyer questions does not mean we favor one defendant over the other or ..... lol we are racist towards the lawyers. If you have to look beyond what has been presented to come to your conclusion then clearly what has been presented is not enough to convict.

1. not one text said anything about murder, only truck theft. Its one picture of a MS with a gun...no evidence to show he is the owner. where there has been evidence to show DM purchased a gun. SS built a homade incinerator, is he a murderer? previous thefts does not make him a murderer or proof he was in the truck at the time of the murder.
2. everyone here agreed before that every witness has lied and now thats changed. claiming ppl lie does not show or proof pre meditated murder or place him in the truck at the time of the murder.
3. nothing stands out except a few things that was discussed...location of the gun...if found today does not proof he was there at the time of the murder. the video of the trucks driving by - again does not proof he was there at time of the murder.
4. for that he deserves AATF, which he admitted too.
5. u mentioned that in question 4 already, finding his clothes does not proof he was in the truck, there is so much text evidence already and none of it mentioned murder or kidnapping or hurting a victim or even a victim involved so I cant bring myself to assume the missing sim card has 100% proof he was in the truck, the gun does not proof he was in the truck. all together is not enough for murder one.
6. never heard MS outline the whole scoping part, as of now there is now explanation to what was going to happen at the end of the test drive..how they would part ways with TB. could be a simple explanation but we dont know and because of that does not proof he was in the truck at the time of the murder. hide the yukon, wear dark clothes gives LE much less of a lead...LE would not pull cell tower info over a truck theft.

all together does not proof he was in the truck.

of course all mho
Click to expand...


Just a couple of thoughts:

RE your #1. There aren't many trials where evidence is shown that a defendant has written or texted the claim that his/her intent was to murder the victim, or divulged his/her entire murder plan. Would you expect a criminal to express the truth in written form? I don't think so. The jurors are expected to consider the totality of the evidence, read the text messages that have been presented along with all the other evidence, and use common sense to decide the probability of what was really being said in those text messages.


Also, it doesn't have to be proven that MS was in the truck in order to be found guilty of 1st degree murder.


MOO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
MrsThreadgoode said:
Just a couple of thoughts:

RE your #1. There aren't many trials where evidence is shown that a defendant has written or texted the claim that his/her intent was to murder the victim, or divulged his/her entire murder plan. Would you expect a criminal to express the truth in written form? I don't think so. The jurors are expected to consider the totality of the evidence, read the text messages that have been presented along with all the other evidence, and use common sense to decide the probability of what was really being said in those text messages.


Also, doesn't have to be proven that he was in the truck in order to be found guilty of 1st degree murder.






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I am considering everything as a whole. whether you break it down individually or put it all together does not proof enough to convict MS of murder one imo. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean im not using common sense, far from it.

<modsnip>

as a whole I see knowledge of a truck theft and AATF for MS.

mho
 
Baaasil said:
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.
Click to expand...

IMHO, all excellent points. Very well said!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I'm still on the fence for MS guilty of murder one. The crown has not yet proven to me he knew about the plan to murder. I think he absolutely covered up what happened which includes destroying evidence. At this point though for me, he wasn't that much more knowledgeable then CN was. JMO

I'm hoping the crown can get me off this fence. Like some others I tend to see some weak spots that don't add up to first degree for me yet
 
<modsnip>
After giving all the evidence and text messages that we have seen so far my utmost considered thought, I am personally satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that MS has revealed his whole-hearted intention to partner with DM to commit 1st degree murder, incineration, theft and cover-up. As always, MOO, which only matters to me.
 
torontoguy31 said:
Not everyone is emotionally involved with this case or have any bias towards MS or DM. Or that we are just looking for the good in people. Just because some of us don't agree with the bandwagon or how a lawyer questions does not mean we favor one defendant over the other <modsnip>. If you have to look beyond what has been presented to come to your conclusion then clearly what has been presented is not enough to convict.

1. not one text said anything about murder, only truck theft. Its one picture of a MS with a gun...no evidence to show he is the owner. where there has been evidence to show DM purchased a gun. SS built a homade incinerator, is he a murderer? previous thefts does not make him a murderer or proof he was in the truck at the time of the murder.
2. everyone here agreed before that every witness has lied and now thats changed. claiming ppl lie does not show or proof pre meditated murder or place him in the truck at the time of the murder.
3. nothing stands out except a few things that was discussed...location of the gun...if found today does not proof he was there at the time of the murder. the video of the trucks driving by - again does not proof he was there at time of the murder.
4. for that he deserves AATF, which he admitted too.
5. u mentioned that in question 4 already, finding his clothes does not proof he was in the truck, there is so much text evidence already and none of it mentioned murder or kidnapping or hurting a victim or even a victim involved so I cant bring myself to assume the missing sim card has 100% proof he was in the truck, the gun does not proof he was in the truck. all together is not enough for murder one.
6. never heard MS outline the whole scoping part, as of now there is now explanation to what was going to happen at the end of the test drive..how they would part ways with TB. could be a simple explanation but we dont know and because of that does not proof he was in the truck at the time of the murder. hide the yukon, wear dark clothes gives LE much less of a lead...LE would not pull cell tower info over a truck theft.

all together does not proof he was in the truck.

of course all mho
Click to expand...

<modsnip>

I don't believe MS needs to have been in the truck to be guilty of murder one. If he does, then sure, I agree he shouldn't be convicted because its certainly plausible he wasn't in the truck and didn't pull the trigger.

As for the rest, I'm not going to argue point by point - clearly we feel differently about the evidence. But I think this response is an example of what I'm talking about when I say people evaluate the evidence individually instead of together. Just as an example look at where you say "so I cant bring myself to assume the missing sim card has 100% proof he was in the truck". Of course this is true. Phone batteries die all the time. None of the pieces of evidence lead to 100% proof. But we don't need 100% proof, and we don't need "beyond a reasonable doubt" for each individual piece of evidence.
 
One thing I try very hard to remember when reading is that we are all someone's child. Brother. Sister. Loved one. Yes, even the accused. And while we all want to see justice, personally I want fair justice.

I'm not looking to convict someone by association. Or because he's into rap, drugs, guns etc. Which seems to be what DM's defense was trying to do.

I would hope if my brother was on the stand, he was treated fairly. We are all here for the victims. While I have no love for MS, in all fairness, if he was your brother and there was any reasonable doubt, I'm sure you'd want the same considerations. MOO

Tomorrow is a new day, and the crown is going to wrap it up. Let's hope it's beyond a reasonable doubt. Because quite honestly if some here have doubts, then some of the jury must be thinking the same

All comments are JMO unless stated otherwise
 
A post referencing possible racial bias was removed. All subsequent posts that referenced it have been removed or edited. Do not continue to discuss posts or content that has been removed.

It is NOT an issue in this trial. Any more posts that mention the topic, TOs will be issued. Promise !!
 
canadiangirl said:
One thing I try very hard to remember when reading is that we are all someone's child. Brother. Sister. Loved one. Yes, even the accused. And while we all want to see justice, personally I want fair justice.

I'm not looking to convict someone by association. Or because he's into rap, drugs, guns etc. Which seems to be what DM's defense was trying to do.

I would hope if my brother was on the stand, he was treated fairly. We are all here for the victims. While I have no love for MS, in all fairness, if he was your brother and there was any reasonable doubt, I'm sure you'd want the same considerations. MOO

Tomorrow is a new day, and the crown is going to wrap it up. Let's hope it's beyond a reasonable doubt. Because quite honestly if some here have doubts, then some of the jury must be thinking the same

All comments are JMO unless stated otherwise
Click to expand...

Great post CG. Too many people buy in to that whole mob mentality thing and figure that since a person was arrested, the must be guilty. Especially on a site like this where the case has been discussed for the past three years with very little in the way of substantiated facts. Burn the bastards, before they've even had their day in court. Nobody should hope for a conviction if the evidence isn't there. In this case I feel that hard evidence against Mr Smitch was sparse, however the circumstantial evidence is abundant. Ultimately it will be Smitch's own words, in the form of texts, that will be his downfall. His explanation of the events that night were on the verge of being believable, but those texts just can't be taken any other way. Somehow I feel that watching this trial through a "Twitter filter" makes it seem much closer than it is, and having followed every day of the trial and listened to both prosecution an defence presentations, I'm confident that both these guys will be found guilty as charged.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 137 more.
Total: 3,231 (members: 138, guests: 3,093)

Online statistics

Members online
138
Guests online
3,093
Total visitors
3,231
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,271
Messages
18,137,994
Members
231,285
Latest member
NanaKate321
Back
Top