Bosma Murder Trial 06.2.16 - Day 58 - Closing Arguments Day 3

[Jug Up]

I guess that also applies to you, Meterclicks, Kamille and the rest of the live tweet posters. Good work and thanks!

I agree. To everyone who kept us up to date, thank you, thank you, thank you!

 

[Inspector_North]

MS's, and DM's story are neither sources of truth. Nor are they evidence. In fact the Crown's story is also not evidence.

There are not many on this forum that believe DM, or wonder about the actual intention for purchasing an animal incinerator. The Pet Cremation has been put to rest early in this trial, and the garbage burning has no history to prove the year old device was used for that purpose. We did hear today for the first time that DM tested it out on a deer. Why would he do that? Why not a load of garbage?

DM IMO was on a path to serious violent crimes. MS knew about the planned van modification, the gun, and the incinerator. While MS 3 years after the crime seems to some very normal when compared to DM, I believe he knew that violence could occur on these new improved missions, including the TB test drive, and in my books that makes MS a partner in this murder.

They both planned and covered up this crime.

It was MS that went to school with MWJ, and introduced DM to him. MS tried to pull too many BS lines when questioned about his involvement, and when questioned about "the gun guy". He knew DM bought his guns from MWJ, but tried to downplay who MWJ stood for by saying he was "the drug dealer guy". He damn well knows about the guns, and he knows damn well that MWJ is more than just the drug dealer. He didn't have any explanation for why he tried to contact MWJ after the murder. MS was not acting like someone shocked by DM murdering and burning an innocent man. No matter how many times he says "yes sir", "no sir".

MOO

 

[Jug Up]

I didn't need much convincing, but today just reaffirmed what I've thought all along.

TD was solid in his close yesterday, but IMO, Leitch laid down about as perfect a closing argument as you can lay down. It was to the point, it was emotional, it was passionate and it was very, very damaging to the defendants. Judging by the tweets, there weren't many dry eyes in that courtroom. I am guessing members of the jury were wiping away tears, as well. That is what Leitch wanted, to emphasize the emotional enormity of this case, and it seems only fitting to say, "mission accomplished."

Seasoned thieves, which these two were, don't need a year to steal a truck. Most can pick one out of a mall parking lot and have it gone before you come out with your groceries, without leaving a clue anywhere. I mean, these two clowns stole a woodchipper and were never caught. A freaking woodchipper! How tough would it have been to heist the truck from TB's driveway in the middle of the night, with no one around? And you know why they didn't? Because these two planned a vicious, bloody heist of a truck, and murder, for over a year, and left a damning trail of evidence along the way. They brought a gun to a test drive while, um, "scoping" out a truck. One of them bought an animal incinerator to "burn garbage."

They've allegedly killed before and, as much as I hate to say it, this could very well have been a thrill kill. The theft wasn't "thrilling" enough, so they picked on the guy who wouldn't, who couldn't, fight back. The weak guy, a Daddy who just wanted to be cuddled up with his daughter on a spring Monday night. But he went out for a test drive, under a cloak of darkness, because he really wanted to sell his truck. For his family, his daughter. They needed the money. And these ******* worked together and killed him while his little girl slept. Why? Because killing (again?) was on their bucket list, that's why.

That makes them thieves, cowards and murderers - in tandem.

Sorry, I can't find sympathy for MS. He did not get a conscience, did not want to do the "right thing." He tried to deflect his involvement in order to get a parole hearing before 2041. That is all. The right thing would have be to contact the authorities about his "madman" friend, even as SB pleaded for them to bring him home, to keep the truck. He didn't reach out to police, even as they closed in on them. He, like DM, thought they were too smart for the cops, too above the law to get caught. And they were wrong.

MS played the part well, the deer-in-the-headlights dimwit who was just along for the ride, literally. But it is easy to play the part when you have three years to memorize your lines.

Leitch did what he had to do, and I think that is all the jury needed. The evidence was the Crown's gift. Today, Leitch just wrapped a bow around it.

I think it is going to be Guilty 1DM for both, and it will take less than two days of deliberations. Maybe even one day.

Enjoy life in prison, scumbags.

MOO

 

[Arnie M]

"The mission went well". These four words are all that is needed.

BINGO !!!! .... you nailed it.

 

[XiolaBlueX]

<modsnip>DM suggesting to MS to bring a change of clothes is not evidence IMO of premeditation to murder. After being in the courtroom yesterday listening to Dungeys introduction of what is evidence vs what is an unproven theory or scenario, this in itself could be alluding to Taking the truck and subsequent painting, Disassembling something, etc or maybe saying MS could be back late so bring a change of clothes. Before convicting MS with 1st degree murder it would need to be proven to me more than this.
As we know, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt, and the more emphasis placed on weak evidence, the more it mixes up the picture, IMO. The pictures of sausages, colourful wood stumps, fireworks and bring your clothes text are way too easily misconstrued, and as far as I can recall, the context has not been collaborated or validated in court.
Do I see strong evidence for 1st degree DM? Absolutely. MS, no matter how despicable and disturbing the things he was involved in may be especially after the fact, I still have reasonable doubt about 1st degree murder. My mind can change depending on judges charge to a jury.
<modsnip>

 

[Ontario Mom]

Wondering if someone who knows how this works can answer this for me:

Once the judge gives his charge to the jury and deliberations begin, what kind of information can we expect to see come out? Specifically I mean, will it be evidence that was argued out during the legal arguments journalists couldn't report on?

 

[rmoeller]

I was on the fence with MS. I'm not any more, great job Crown! Hoping Dellen the Felon and Say 10 both get 1st degree, and Tim gets justice.

 

[Ontario Mom]

I was on the fence with MS. I'm not any more, great job Crown! Hoping Dellen the Felon and Say 10 both get 1st degree, and Tim gets justice.

I was also on the fence on several aspects but I agree the Crown was very compelling today. I can't even really put my finger on what it was exactly but I think it had a lot to do with the way Leitch presented MS contacting DM after the fact. I know we've seen that evidence before but something about that today just sort of made me shake my head. I still think some of the texts between them can be misread to mean something other than what they appear to mean to many.

 

[Jug Up]

This is the main reason I conclude MS&#8217;s story is complete and utter BS.

Lawyers can advise their clients but, it the end, the accused has the final say. What he wants, goes. The lawyer is tasked with getting his client exonerated or, at the very least, get them the best possible deal. This is why we have plea bargains.

So, if MS&#8217;s version of events is true, why not try to get a plea bargain long before this trial started? If this is indeed the truth, and MS will turn on DM and plead guilty to AATF for the burning and cover-up, isn&#8217;t this the best possible outcome for MS, and more than he could have hoped for? And do you not think the Crown would have jumped at that deal, or at least considered it? Or is it possible TD tried to get a plea bargain and was shot down by the Crown, because they had so much evidence on the 1DM charge?

My take? They didn&#8217;t try to plea this out because they didn&#8217;t know the witnesses would be as damning as they were and, after all the evidence was in, MS decided to take the stand and conveniently tell his story based on the evidence already submitted. He knew DM had already hung himself out to dry, so I think as the trial went along, MS decided if DM refused to take the stand, he was going to do the &#8220;right thing&#8221;, so to speak, and tell his &#8220;story&#8221;. And I mean that literally.


Otherwise, why not tell the Crown this story two years ago and take the first-degree murder verdict out of the jury&#8217;s hands?

MS didn&#8217;t know the blow-by-blow evidence and couldn&#8217;t plan out his work of fiction until he knew the full details.

That is why I think MS's story is believable to so many. Because he crafted it to fit PERFECTLY with all the evidence submitted, it almost seemed plausible.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Wondering if someone who knows how this works can answer this for me:

Once the judge gives his charge to the jury and deliberations begin, what kind of information can we expect to see come out? Specifically I mean, will it be evidence that was argued out during the legal arguments journalists couldn't report on?

I am stymied about this now. Normally, when the jury begins deliberations, the media is able to publish, for example, evidence that the judge ruled inadmissible.

(For example, in the recent Toronto trial about the death of sweet Melonie Biddersingh, who was unspeakably abused by her father and stepmother, during the father's trial the judge had ruled that evidence of the previous questionable death of Melonie's brother could not be admitted as evidence because it might prejudice the jury. The moment the jury went to deliberate, each of the newspapers released a "what the jury didn't hear" story and revealed everything about Melonie's brother's death. Father was found guilty, by the way, and the stepmother is currently on trial. It is on WS. An absolute horrific life that poor child and her siblings had.)

And Susan Clairmont and other journalists say they are currently working on stories right now that can be published when the jury begins to deliberate.

However, I just read through the document that billandrew kindly posted up thread, where it states that a publication ban remains in effect until Laura Babcock's trial, so I am confused. [emoji848]

MOO

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Ontario Mom]

I am stymied about this now. Normally, when the jury begins deliberations, the media is able to publish, for example, evidence that the judge ruled inadmissible.

And Susan Clairmont and other journalists say they are currently working on stories right now that can be published when the jury begins to deliberate.

However, I just read through the document that billandrew kindly posted up thread, where it states that a publication ban remains in effect until Laura Babcock's trial, so I am confused. [emoji848]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's what I'm confused about as well. Since there's been a publication ban, we don't know what it is that we don't know. I can't imagine every argument over evidence was ruled inadmissible because it's part of LB's trial but I guess when the info does start coming out, the questions that still remain unanswered will possibly be part of that?

I really wish I would have been able to sit in during the trial. I suspect like many others who have, I'd have a much clearer opinion of things. Trial by twitter has definitely been a learning experience for me.

 

[Jug Up]

I am stymied about this now. Normally, when the jury begins deliberations, the media is able to publish, for example, evidence that the judge ruled inadmissible.

(For example, in the recent Toronto trial about the death of sweet Melonie Biddersingh, who was unspeakably abused by her father and stepmother, during the father's trial the judge had ruled that evidence of the previous questionable death of Melonie's brother could not be admitted as evidence because it might prejudice the jury. The moment the jury went to deliberate, each of the newspapers released a "what the jury didn't hear" story and revealed everything about Melonie's brother's death. Father was found guilty, by the way, and the stepmother is currently on trial. It is on WS. An absolute horrific life that poor child and her siblings had.)

And Susan Clairmont and other journalists say they are currently working on stories right now that can be published when the jury begins to deliberate.

However, I just read through the document that billandrew kindly posted up thread, where it states that a publication ban remains in effect until Laura Babcock's trial, so I am confused. [emoji848]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I wonder if some of the inadmissible evidence is under a publication ban because it has a direct relation to the LB case? (i.e. DNA in the incinerator or Yukon, texts between them, more letters from DM to CN, etc....)

Just a thought?

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

That's what I'm confused about as well. Since there's been a publication ban, we don't know what it is that we don't know. I can't imagine every argument over evidence was ruled inadmissible because it's part of LB's trial but I guess when the info does start coming out, the questions that still remain unanswered will possibly be part of that?

I really wish I would have been able to sit in during the trial. I suspect like many others who have, I'd have a much clearer opinion of things. Trial by twitter has definitely been a learning experience for me.

BBM

LOL! For me too! Gosh "Trial By Twitter" paints a scary picture in my imagination, lol.

MOO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[NashBridges2]

Something that really stuck with me today, was how Leitch really tied the 2 of them together, working as a team, through the whole thing. Was it 68 times they contacted each other in the 3 days after the murder and that's not counting the hours and hours they were together afterwards, cleaning and burning stuff. But mostly, it dawned on me about the gun. MS said he was worried DM was trying to frame him and that's why he buried the gun. The gun is the ONLY piece of evidence that could have cleared MS and yet, it's just gone gone gone.

I don't know what else he could have done, he put them together like Bonnie and Clyde, salt and pepper, chips and dip.... They were in this together, from start to finish.

 

[NashBridges2]

This is the main reason I conclude MS&#8217;s story is complete and utter BS.

Lawyers can advise their clients but, it the end, the accused has the final say. What he wants, goes. The lawyer is tasked with getting his client exonerated or, at the very least, get them the best possible deal. This is why we have plea bargains.

So, if MS&#8217;s version of events is true, why not try to get a plea bargain long before this trial started? If this is indeed the truth, and MS will turn on DM and plead guilty to AATF for the burning and cover-up, isn&#8217;t this the best possible outcome for MS, and more than he could have hoped for? And do you not think the Crown would have jumped at that deal, or at least considered it? Or is it possible TD tried to get a plea bargain and was shot down by the Crown, because they had so much evidence on the 1DM charge?

My take? They didn&#8217;t try to plea this out because they didn&#8217;t know the witnesses would be as damning as they were and, after all the evidence was in, MS decided to take the stand and conveniently tell his story based on the evidence already submitted. He knew DM had already hung himself out to dry, so I think as the trial went along, MS decided if DM refused to take the stand, he was going to do the &#8220;right thing&#8221;, so to speak, and tell his &#8220;story&#8221;. And I mean that literally.


Otherwise, why not tell the Crown this story two years ago and take the first-degree murder verdict out of the jury&#8217;s hands?

MS didn&#8217;t know the blow-by-blow evidence and couldn&#8217;t plan out his work of fiction until he knew the full details.

That is why I think MS's story is believable to so many. Because he crafted it to fit PERFECTLY with all the evidence submitted, it almost seemed plausible.

This, exactly. An innocent man, would not sit in jail for 3 years, without a police interrogation, interview, etc. He kept quiet until he knew what he was up against, then he removed himself from every piece of the story that would have got him in trouble.

 

[spanishshara]

Wondering if someone who knows how this works can answer this for me:

Once the judge gives his charge to the jury and deliberations begin, what kind of information can we expect to see come out? Specifically I mean, will it be evidence that was argued out during the legal arguments journalists couldn't report on?

Curious as well. I think the publication ban will still block a lot of info. That happened with Noelle Paquette even though both plead guilty and didn't go to trial. Of course we had the statement of facts the Crown read on sentencing day (a lot of disturbing stuff nobody knew came out) but still don't know everything and have the documents. But it sounds like journalists at this trial will be publishing more info once deliberations start.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

I wonder if some of the inadmissible evidence is under a publication ban because it has a direct relation to the LB case? (i.e. DNA in the incinerator or Yukon, texts between them, more letters from DM to CN, etc....)

Just a thought?

Thank you. This makes sense. I guess as long as the "What the jury doesn't know" information doesn't involve/hinder the prosecution of the Laura Babcock case, it can be published?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[kaen]

I can't even really put my finger on what it was exactly but I think it had a lot to do with the way Leitch presented MS contacting DM after the fact. I know we've seen that evidence before but something about that today just sort of made me shake my head. I still think some of the texts between them can be misread to mean something other than what they appear to mean to many.

I agree 100% with your thoughts on this. The compelling part was the walking it through step by step. I think some of the communication was not as the Crown said but, darn it, the back and forth between the two of them through me into the both guilty camp.

 

[palisadesk]

.

So, if MS’s version of events is true, why not try to get a plea bargain long before this trial started? If this indeed the truth, and MS will turn on DM and plead guilty to AATF for the burning and cover-up, isn’t this the best possible outcome for MS, and more than he could have hoped for?.

Not only is it possible, it is highly likely that MS (in the person of his lawyers) did exactly that.. I would bet a sizable sum on that having taken place, if I were inclined to bet at all; I think it's almost a foregone conclusion.

But the Crown would have had no compelling reason to accept such a deal. They save money by trying the two accused together on the same charges, so keeping costs down was not a factor, and they have some prospect of conviction (not certainty) based on the evidence, or they would not have been able to get a direct indictment. The optics of plea resolution agreements in high-profile cases almost always look bad to the public, and they certainly wanted to avoid that (shades of "the deal with the devil," etc. etc.)

But it's not true that what the accused says, goes, as far as his defense is concerned. He (or she) can insist on taking the stand, against his counsel's advice, but he cannot control what questions the lawyer asks him while he's on the stand, and he can't make a speech according to his own desires. His lawyer will usually not know what details of the client's "story" are true or not, but he will not knowingly facilitate the client getting on the stand to tell a pack of known (to the lawyer) lies or falsehoods. If a compulsive liar insists on taking the stand, his lawyer can circumscribe the possibilities by simply restricting the questions he asks so that any flights of perjured fancy are limited in scope.

Why not tell the Crown the "true story"? Well, in this case, we will never know what might have happened (and I'm not prejudging whether MS's story is true in parts or not), but AIDWYC can reel off a stream of people who did variations on exactly that and got years in the slammer (unjustly) for their cooperation.

Plea resolution agreements are commonplace because they help the wheels of justice grind more efficiently and when properly handled are fair to all parties, and allow the courts to focus on more critical cases. They are much less appropriate where heinous crimes, like this one and some others we could mention, are involved. In such cases justice must not only be done, it must be very publicly seen to be done.

But there can not be any justice for Tim Bosma. No restitution, no penalty, no sentence will ever undo the harm done, or give back what was taken away. The most that can be hoped for is that those responsible can never again inflict such harm on another individual or family.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Tonight's Susan Clairmont story:

http://m.thespec.com/news-story/6704971-clairmont-the-fact-is-sometimes-people-are-just-killers-/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk