Bosma Murder Trial 06.1.16 - Day 57 - Closing Arguments Day 2

[Typhoo1961]

I am only going by a post yesterday from AP, who has been notorious for tweeting and reporting on the radio incorrect information at various points throughout the trial. I was unable to find anything to support or not support her comment.. and I can't even find it right now to quote it.

I wish I could answer your questions but I cannot. I'd like to know the same answers myself. I do agree with you in regards to AP however. The other day I heard her mention that Legal Aid lawyers get $400.00 an hour which is not true as far as the research I did showed me. You would think a reporter would at least get her facts straight before going on the air.

 

[sleuther76]

My post here is not directly toward the OP, but to everyone. Just wondering.... it has been said that if the jury finds that one of the accuseds is not guilty of murder or manslaughter, but is believed to be guilty of accessory after the fact to murder, the verdict must be 'not guilty', because AATF is not an included offence to what they have already been charged with?... so then what happens to such an accused.. do they then get charged with AATF and have another trial to prove that? Or do they just simply walk away without a sentence? I am only going by a post yesterday from AP, who has been notorious for tweeting and reporting on the radio incorrect information at various points throughout the trial. I was unable to find anything to support or not support her comment.. and I can't even find it right now to quote it.

3 Options:

1.) Recharged ... new trial
2.) Plea deal
3.) Walk away

Update: I should note that I believe those are the 3 options that the crown has

 

[deugirtni]

My understanding the years before a trial is counted as double. Then the remaining years. So 6+19. But I have been known to be wrong. Lol

I had understood that double time for 'dead time' had been abolished, and that dead time was now considered straight time.. but it seems the law abolishing the double time was reinstated to a max of 1.5 time for dead time. Our ex PM was trying to get harsher with criminals but seems he was overridden.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...t_restores_credit_for_pretrial_jail_time.html

 

[deugirtni]

3 Options:

1.) Recharged ... new trial
2.) Plea deal
3.) Walk away

Update: I should note that I believe those are the 3 options that the crown has

Doesn't seem right/fair that our government (us) should have to foot the bill for another trial if he was deemed in *this* trial to be guilty of AATF but yet can't be convicted of that? And... I don't know that there could be a plea deal after already having been found 'not guilty' of the charges in *this* trial,.. how can a deal then be made to plead guilty to a lesser charge if he's already gotten off on the charges levied.. and wow, I can't believe a person could just walk away, when we know through their original trial, that they are indeed guilty of at least AATF. None of the above sound appropriate. Would be good to get an official answer on that scenario. moo

 

[deugirtni]

I wish I could answer your questions but I cannot. I'd like to know the same answers myself. I do agree with you in regards to AP however. The other day I heard her mention that Legal Aid lawyers get $400.00 an hour which is not true as far as the research I did showed me. You would think a reporter would at least get her facts straight before going on the air.

There have been *SO* many errors in her reporting, it's just unbelievable.. well, it's one thing to make an honest mistake, but if one is made, one might expect there to be a note of apology for getting it wrong, and then reporting the correction.. but when the errors are made time and again, and no corrections or apologies are ever posted, wow. The one I can't believe was when she reported the windshield had been removed in the TB truck. Hate to chew away at someone, she adds a lot of 'flavor', and her radio interviews are interesting to listen to, but one really must be able to count on what she is saying as the truth, and that is just not possible in her case. moo

 

[deugirtni]

Just curious is anyone here is planning to attend the Crown's closing arguments?

 

[billandrew]

Has anyone ever found any information on Dungey? I was curious about the lawyers and so I was doing a little digging.
I really can't find much about him whereas the other have websites or information on them.
I was wondering who else he represented, being in the business so long, I'm sure he would have to have a few under his belt.
Interesting how MS would find him. Like do you just "call a lawyer" and hope for the best?
Thankfully I've never need a lawyer obviously lol

Anecdotally, I recently spoke to a (now retired) Staff Sergeant of the Hamilton Police who knew Dungey for over 25 years. He said that Dungey represented a lot of people facing drug and gang related charges, and he would see him at the trials.

This officer had a rather scathing opinion of Dungey, for what's it worth (they were always working on opposing sides). He called him an a-hole who doesn't like to play by the rules. He had no respect for him whatsoever.

 

[andreww]

I haven't been following closely, so correct me if I'm wrong: Both of the accused admit Bosma was shot, but claim the other person brought the gun, which was completely unnecessary since the plan was never to rob TB, but to return him to his home and later steal the truck.

It's obviously absurd that MS would take that iniative without DM's approval, DM's story is crock.

For MS's version, why would DM bring the gun unless he intended to use it in some way. And why would he risk having MS along unless he was quite confident MS wouldn't react badly once the gun became involved and turn him in?. Since MS was so apparently useless, it would've been smarter and safer not to involve him, and just instruct him to follow in the Yukon and then drive it to the hangar.

That's basically what Smich is saying happened isn't it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mimimic]

My understanding the years before a trial is counted as double. Then the remaining years. So 6+19. But I have been known to be wrong. Lol

Really? Cushy.

 

[littlesauce]

All My own opinion:

Today was a fine example, and a reminder, of what good legal representation is, and what the law is all about.

Yes. The crown so far has a decent case. It isn't bullet proof, and a lot of the testimony presented is full of holes and lies, and people protecting their own interests (CN and her later trial). We know, regardless of MS' testimony on the stand, that TB died at the hands of DM and MS. Maybe one, maybe both of them committed the crime. Only the two defendants know the truth. The bigger question, is which truth is actually factual. MS gave testimony, and some of that testimony is backed up and correlated by physical evidence (video footage, lack of GSR in yukon, etc). There are some flaws with his story, but not critical, and after cross examination, the crown didnt come forward with evidence or witness which disproved his testimony. DM has provided no testimony, and we were subjected to the poor ability of his legal councel in cross examination, and his rambling and suggestion of what DM claims happened. Unfortunately, his ramblings didn't help his or DM's appearance of supposed innocence, and the theories made even less sense, with little previously entered physical evidence backing up DM's scenarios.

I've read a few opinions on this thread, and I do not agree largely with those that just want to watch someone fry - not justice, but vengeance. I am a firm beleiver in the justice system, and the conviction has to fit the crime. Yes, TB died and it was horrible. But before we completely remove someones freedom and strip them of some of their charter rights, the very charter rights that soliders die for, and ever Canadian takes for granted, we MUST be sure we convict the correct person, for the correct time, and that they serve the correct sentence. I don't care of MS or DM are sleazy, manipulating, or what ever I think of them. One of them pulled the trigger, and we have to be damn sure which one planned that murder before we slam them away for 70+ years.

Today was a good example of the legal system at work. It established that only one person could have commited Murder in the first degree, and that the other committed second degree, at worst. Dungey did a good job showing that it was possible that it was actually a murder in the second commited by DM, and that MS was accessory after the fact.

At this time, I'm inclined to think that DM commited First or Second degree (mountain against him), and that MS was accessory after the fact (no GSR in yukon, video footage backs his story better than DM's story, etc), after my taking into consideration the facts of the case, the testimony given, and evidence entered. I do not pay attention to stories, speculation and theories in a court room. They don't belong there.

Tomorrow the crown has their turn. My opinion might change, again.

All my own thoughts and opinion.

I'm with you on this. I feel like a lot of people just want to see these two be found guilty on principle. My husband feels they should be rot. But I feel strongly that if someone didn't do a crime, they shouldn't serve the time. I have tried very hard to remain unbiased in this case and to look strictly at the evidence presented. Theories presented make me wonder but then I remember they are just that and can't be used to make a final decision. All MOO. We'll see what Leitch says today and then what Justice Goodman has to say in his charge.

 

[andreww]

All My own opinion:

Today was a fine example, and a reminder, of what good legal representation is, and what the law is all about.

Yes. The crown so far has a decent case. It isn't bullet proof, and a lot of the testimony presented is full of holes and lies, and people protecting their own interests (CN and her later trial). We know, regardless of MS' testimony on the stand, that TB died at the hands of DM and MS. Maybe one, maybe both of them committed the crime. Only the two defendants know the truth. The bigger question, is which truth is actually factual. MS gave testimony, and some of that testimony is backed up and correlated by physical evidence (video footage, lack of GSR in yukon, etc). There are some flaws with his story, but not critical, and after cross examination, the crown didnt come forward with evidence or witness which disproved his testimony. DM has provided no testimony, and we were subjected to the poor ability of his legal councel in cross examination, and his rambling and suggestion of what DM claims happened. Unfortunately, his ramblings didn't help his or DM's appearance of supposed innocence, and the theories made even less sense, with little previously entered physical evidence backing up DM's scenarios.

I've read a few opinions on this thread, and I do not agree largely with those that just want to watch someone fry - not justice, but vengeance. I am a firm beleiver in the justice system, and the conviction has to fit the crime. Yes, TB died and it was horrible. But before we completely remove someones freedom and strip them of some of their charter rights, the very charter rights that soliders die for, and ever Canadian takes for granted, we MUST be sure we convict the correct person, for the correct time, and that they serve the correct sentence. I don't care of MS or DM are sleazy, manipulating, or what ever I think of them. One of them pulled the trigger, and we have to be damn sure which one planned that murder before we slam them away for 70+ years.

Today was a good example of the legal system at work. It established that only one person could have commited Murder in the first degree, and that the other committed second degree, at worst. Dungey did a good job showing that it was possible that it was actually a murder in the second commited by DM, and that MS was accessory after the fact.

At this time, I'm inclined to think that DM commited First or Second degree (mountain against him), and that MS was accessory after the fact (no GSR in yukon, video footage backs his story better than DM's story, etc), after my taking into consideration the facts of the case, the testimony given, and evidence entered. I do not pay attention to stories, speculation and theories in a court room. They don't belong there.

Tomorrow the crown has their turn. My opinion might change, again.

All my own thoughts and opinion.

They sure as hell could both be guilty of first degree and likely are. There has been evidence that showed these guys planned exactly what they did. There is video of the pair strutting through the hangar, neither looking like they are under duress, and there is MMs testimony that the pair were in a celebratory mood the next day.

Millard is guilty, no sense wasting my breath on him. With Smich you have to look at a bunch of texts and testimony and decipher what they mean or who's telling the truth. For instance, witnesses lied, we know that. But they lied to protect themselves for the most part. How would MMs testimony that Smich and Millard we're celebrating help her? People feared MM would protect Smich, and this comment hurts him. Why would she lie??

The texts also need to be looked at closely. When Millard prepared for the bbq in Waterloo, what is he talking about. The texts that follow that comment are about the generator, not hot dogs and ketchup. Likewise, the sausage & furniture texts can be interpreted in different ways, as can the fireworks text. Is it reasonable to assume Smich was referring to the May 1 bbq or some fireworks display? I don't think so given the context of those conversations, although many of the texts have no time stamp and thus could have a completely different meaning if they were actually sent hours after the previous text.

Bottom line is I feel Smich is 100% guilty but I'm not sure the evidence is solid enough to convict. All comes down to the jury. We know three will be differing opinions, but which side will relent? The decision, one way or another, need to be unanimous, so I see a very long deliberation being possible. Possibly even a no decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Quote Originally Posted by Redwing View Post
"Cringey" is the word, spot on. Actually I find the whole "ghetto" dialect that we see coming from the two defendants in their text messages Cringey -- trying to act so hip from their cushy middle class parents' homes in suburbia. Their sudo gangster act, trying so desperately to be cool. Acting as if they had dealt with strife , poverty and adversity. Sounding stupid and spoilt. As if anyone ever needed a "Chrome piece" to survive in North Oakville (or anywhere in Oakville). Wonder how the little lord Faunterloys would have done dropped into some inner city area.
Perhaps they will have more opportunity to practice their lexicon in prison. Wonder if it will bring them credibility there or just laughter.

Drives me crazy. My 18 year old son uses the exact same words and phrases when talking to his friends.

 

[ILoveDateline]

Why is there a general assumption that when a gun is pulled out, a struggle ensues? The whole point of guns is to avoid this. A little guy can kill a big guy without even touching him. Aren't struggles over guns the thing of movies?
If those guys wanted Igors truck by shooting, what was stopping them? And, what was wrong with Igors truck that they didn't return to take it, as they are pretending the plan was? Why drive all the way to Ancaster with that roll of tape? I wish the crown had asked what that tape was used for. There seems to be more evidence that MS was there to confine the victim than kill him.

I was talking with my hubby about this the other day. We both agreed that if a gun was ever pulled on us, we'd get the heck outta Dodge. literally!

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[Elisabeth]

Funny how that works. DM's lyrics show how egotistical he is, but MS's lyrics are just a rap song, means nothing.

sort of off topic and sort of not: I have been reading Kolyma Tales which is short stories about the Russian Gulag prison camps where Russian organized crime really took off. It made me curious and I did some googling and found information on the extensive use of tattoos used by the Russian organized crime. It really was a language as Igor said. I am not surprised a Russian ex-pat took note of DM's tattoos. Based on what I read you would want to walk very carefully when brushing up against any "thief in law" (as they were known)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thief_in_law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_criminal_tattoos

 

[andreww]

Quote Originally Posted by deugirtni View Post

My post here is not directly toward the OP, but to everyone. Just wondering.... it has been said that if the jury finds that one of the accuseds is not guilty of murder or manslaughter, but is believed to be guilty of accessory after the fact to murder, the verdict must be 'not guilty', because AATF is not an included offence to what they have already been charged with?... so then what happens to such an accused.. do they then get charged with AATF and have another trial to prove that? Or do they just simply walk away without a sentence? I am only going by a post yesterday from AP, who has been notorious for tweeting and reporting on the radio incorrect information at various points throughout the trial. I was unable to find anything to support or not support her comment.. and I can't even find it right now to quote it.

I have no idea but isn't that why all sides are involved in crafting the judges charge to the jury? Cannot the judge say that if the evidence doesn't meet the criteria for first degree murder, you have the option of either 2nd degree or AATF? I would guess that all sides would have to be in agreement with all the options but I certainly can't see them starting this whole thing again tomorrow to try Smich for second degree murder. MOO.

 

[billandrew]

They sure as hell could both be guilty of first degree and likely are. There has been evidence that showed these guys planned exactly what they did. There is video of the pair strutting through the hangar, neither looking like they are under duress, and there is MMs testimony that the pair were in a celebratory mood the next day.

Millard is guilty, no sense wasting my breath on him. With Smich you have to look at a bunch of texts and testimony and decipher what they mean or who's telling the truth. For instance, witnesses lied, we know that. But they lied to protect themselves for the most part. How would MMs testimony that Smich and Millard we're celebrating help her? People feared MM would protect Smich, and this comment hurts him. Why would she lie??

The texts also need to be looked at closely. When Millard prepared for the bbq in Waterloo, what is he talking about. The texts that follow that comment are about the generator, not hot dogs and ketchup. Likewise, the sausage & furniture texts can be interpreted in different ways, as can the fireworks text. Is it reasonable to assume Smich was referring to the May 1 bbq or some fireworks display? I don't think so given the context of those conversations, although many of the texts have no time stamp and thus could have a completely different meaning if they were actually sent hours after the previous text.

Bottom line is I feel Smich is 100% guilty but I'm not sure the evidence is solid enough to convict. All comes down to the jury. We know three will be differing opinions, but which side will relent? The decision, one way or another, need to be unanimous, so I see a very long deliberation being possible. Possibly even a no decision.

BBM. Both defences claimed they were discussing an actual barbecue planned for May 1. "Headed to Waterloo, figure out BBQ situation for this week." That comma, argue the defences, clearly separates Millard's text into two different messages. However, the message was followed by an actual trip to Waterloo -- where the incinerator was -- and messages referencing the incinerator via the generator used to power it. The messages also suggest that Smich went with Millard on this trip -- Smich agreed that the messages don't suggest otherwise.

There are also messages from 2012 revealing prior trips to Waterloo to see incinerators:

May 28, 2012 - Millard writes, "we go do [sic] incinerator, cool?" referring to the homemade incinerator. Smich replied, "Yo I'm down bro."

September 5, 2012 - Millard writes, "Let's reach Waterloo ... move the BBQ into the barn (need some things from home depot for that) and do more equipment painting, then scope 35 at night." A video was taken later that day of the incinerator hitched to the Yukon at the hangar.

This evidence overwhelmingly supports the notion that Millard is referring to the incinerator in the April 27 message, IMO. It reveals a joint (Smich + Millard) association to it. They go to see it together. The incinerator has some significance to both of them, and neither of them were going into the pet cremation business.

I firmly believe the Crown was correct during their cross-examination of Smich, when Fraser suggested "the incinerator, chillingly called the BBQ, was in fact the last piece of the puzzle." Both Smich and Millard knew what is was for.

 

[Elisabeth]

All My own opinion:

Today was a fine example, and a reminder, of what good legal representation is, and what the law is all about.

Yes. The crown so far has a decent case. It isn't bullet proof, and a lot of the testimony presented is full of holes and lies, and people protecting their own interests (CN and her later trial). We know, regardless of MS' testimony on the stand, that TB died at the hands of DM and MS. Maybe one, maybe both of them committed the crime. Only the two defendants know the truth. The bigger question, is which truth is actually factual. MS gave testimony, and some of that testimony is backed up and correlated by physical evidence (video footage, lack of GSR in yukon, etc). There are some flaws with his story, but not critical, and after cross examination, the crown didnt come forward with evidence or witness which disproved his testimony. DM has provided no testimony, and we were subjected to the poor ability of his legal councel in cross examination, and his rambling and suggestion of what DM claims happened. Unfortunately, his ramblings didn't help his or DM's appearance of supposed innocence, and the theories made even less sense, with little previously entered physical evidence backing up DM's scenarios.

I've read a few opinions on this thread, and I do not agree largely with those that just want to watch someone fry - not justice, but vengeance. I am a firm beleiver in the justice system, and the conviction has to fit the crime. Yes, TB died and it was horrible. But before we completely remove someones freedom and strip them of some of their charter rights, the very charter rights that soliders die for, and ever Canadian takes for granted, we MUST be sure we convict the correct person, for the correct time, and that they serve the correct sentence. I don't care of MS or DM are sleazy, manipulating, or what ever I think of them. One of them pulled the trigger, and we have to be damn sure which one planned that murder before we slam them away for 70+ years.

Today was a good example of the legal system at work. It established that only one person could have commited Murder in the first degree, and that the other committed second degree, at worst. Dungey did a good job showing that it was possible that it was actually a murder in the second commited by DM, and that MS was accessory after the fact.

At this time, I'm inclined to think that DM commited First or Second degree (mountain against him), and that MS was accessory after the fact (no GSR in yukon, video footage backs his story better than DM's story, etc), after my taking into consideration the facts of the case, the testimony given, and evidence entered. I do not pay attention to stories, speculation and theories in a court room. They don't belong there.

Tomorrow the crown has their turn. My opinion might change, again.

All my own thoughts and opinion.

How did it establish only one person could have committed murder in the first degree?

There are lots of ways a second person helps in planning or confinement (to prevent escape) without them both having pulled the trigger.

 

[ILoveDateline]

Doesn't seem right/fair that our government (us) should have to foot the bill for another trial if he was deemed in *this* trial to be guilty of AATF but yet can't be convicted of that? And... I don't know that there could be a plea deal after already having been found 'not guilty' of the charges in *this* trial,.. how can a deal then be made to plead guilty to a lesser charge if he's already gotten off on the charges levied.. and wow, I can't believe a person could just walk away, when we know through their original trial, that they are indeed guilty of at least AATF. None of the above sound appropriate. Would be good to get an official answer on that scenario. moo

While it's still unclear to me as to what constitutes 2nd degree murder and what the judge's charge to the jury may be, MS is not getting off. His own lawyer said he was guilty of AATF in the closing arguments yesterday. I would think if MS is found not guilty of 1st and 2nd degree murder, he would willing plead guilty to AATF and hope for leniency in sentencing for foregoing a trial. IMO.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[Elisabeth]

Anecdotally, I recently spoke to a (now retired) Staff Sergeant of the Hamilton Police who knew Dungey for over 25 years. He said that Dungey represented a lot of people facing drug and gang related charges, and he would see him at the trials.

This officer had a rather scathing opinion of Dungey, for what's it worth (they were always working on opposing sides). He called him an a-hole who doesn't like to play by the rules. He had no respect for him whatsoever.

"doesn't like to play by the rules"...is that like getting off on a technicality or trying to sneak something by a judge that technically shouldn't be allowed....?


Perhaps we will get a sense when we see what evidence was not allowed to be presented....

 

[mozzagirl]

Maybe we will hear about the elusive hose in the Crown's closing statement today. As we now know, to talk about something in your closing statement it better already be evidence, so that might be the exact reason they had it introduced.