Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #14

[Claroon]

In the context of this murder trial, I think this is rather irrelevant, imho. I think there is no such thing as an honest drug dealer, and that all of them have 'trick scales' for use depending on which customer they happen to be transacting with. Greed, dishonesty, and getting something for nothing, is rampant everywhere. Of course, I could go on, and on, but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about, even something as basic as the age old cliche of the dishonest used car salesperson. It's just everywhere. moo

Yes. I once volunteered with a youth centre and found the "client" I worked with was dishonest. I was told by the organization's director someone who has lied for 18 years doesn't easily just quit lying. It can take another 18 yrs to undo it and retrain. I'm glad MS expresses he's on his way to that, but you don't just turn all the evidence around by the testimony of a drug dealer who cheats and lies. IMO

 

[Arnie M]

You just reminded me of something I've been meaning to ask. We never did find out how the rearview mirror got broken off, did we?

Not broken ... being disassembled and hanging by the wires ... likely by police because later they photographed it with the fingerprint

trivia: removing a mirror takes a couple of seconds using a small allen wrench to loosen a small set screw and the mounting base slides up and off . Takes longer if there are electrical wires attached (like Bosma's)

 

[RandomName479]

Plead guilty and tell the truth about what really happened? :thinking:

Wishful thinking.....I definitely don't see that happening....he is such a narcissist. I would love to be wrong.

Anyone else find it interesting that MS has the SAME lawyer for his 2 murder chargers and DM has his lawyers for this trial, he's representing himself in the WM trial and has another lawyer (the guy who is saying that DM's case can be reopened on the news) for the LB trial?

 

[Georgeo]

.

Nighttime , dark , outdoors .... Mark can remember seeing DM put a gun in his satchel

Nighttime , dark , outdoors .... Mark cannot remember where he biked to bury the gun

headlights from Yukon would light up DM in front of him
bikes don't have headlights and no streetlights in a forest, so not the same really. Jmo

 

[Claroon]

Calculated preplanning to the nth degree, imho. First DM makes arrangements with Mr.V fo use the red Ram.. then realizes he will also need the Yukon to tow The Eliminator.. removes the plates from the ram in advance and puts them into the Yukon. He was a very busy bee. This is something that wasn't discussed prior to MS's testimony, as far as I know. This is a little detail that could have been left out, but wasn't, and it leads me to put more weight on MS's testimony that the multiple others who had to have info dragged out of them, and still didn't want to spill. In saying those few words, MS has in effect admitted preplanning on DM's part (already had the plates ready during the 'test drive to scope out TB's truck' which suggests that in DM's mind at least, this wasn't just a scoping of a truck, and what did he therefore plan on doing with TB when he stole the truck with him in it?), and AATF for himself.

:goodpost: Amazing. Earlier today I was reading back about the trading of vehicles as I too noticed once AJ saw the truck, the plates were off, so I caught on about him needing the red plates and the JV switcheroo, etc. Completely pre-planned. IMO

Approx. time Millard trades Yukon for red Dodge Ram from Villada. Villada is told he will have Yukon for 1 week. Day 26: Villada testimony
May 4 8:00 pm At some point, Millard texts Schlatman "Got it!", possibly referring to generator at farm property. Day 28: Schlatman testimony
May 4 10:34 pm Millard texts Villada looking to trade the white van for the Yukon.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

I just read a tweet that The Hamilton Spec's Susan Clairmont responded to a few hours ago.

Someone asked Susan this question: "@susanclairmont millard still had to drive to his farm and i am so surprised no cop or a person saw the smashed window or Bosma in it."

Susan's answer was: "It was night. Tim was wrapped in a tarp."

I don't recall Tim being wrapped in a tarp at this point (drive from Bobcat video area to the farm) ever being introduced in testimony? Does anyone else?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[palisadesk]

Please please do not tramp on me. I am in no way being disrespectful or judgemental, or trying to start anything, but I wonder if perhaps Arthur has a bit of a disability. MS stated that no one liked him...that he had pity for him..that he "let" him hang around. He felt the need to be honest and told his mother about the gun, MS was regretting asking him to do it. etc. Could be why he could be easily swayed to take part in the tagging and the retrieval and even going to wrong location. If this is the case, I truly hope they don't call him. Putting him on the stand could not not help anyone in this case and could cause him more grief.

I had the same idea. I figured it might well be an intellectual disability, which is most often invisible. MM in particular referred to Arthur in very derogatory terms, which another poster suggested she would not have used if he actually had an intellectual disability. I agree with that -- in a way. If MM actually knew a person had an intellectual disability, she probably would not speak of him or her using opprobrious epithets. But I suspect she and most others in their circle would not necessarily recognize intellectual disability in a young adult who doesn't have concomitant physical issues, such as sometimes occur with autism, spina bifida, etc. (conditions that may or may not include intellectual disability but which generally have observable physical characteristics).

Although an adult with intellectual disabilities in the mild to moderate range may look quite normal, speak well in everyday situations, he or she will often have trouble fitting in with peers because of the very real developmental differences, of which peers may only be partially aware. They may ascribe the individual's lack of social competence or difficulties in certain situations as due to laziness, stupidity (ordinary stupidity, not a handicap) or just being "weird."

Although the Supreme Court (R. vs. D.A.I.) ruled that people with cognitive handicaps cannot be excluded from being witnesses, especially when they need to speak to abuse or assault, they have to be interrogated carefully and with no "trick" questions or verbal subtleties. In general, they are not usually called as witnesses where they are not directly involved, because their limited comprehension also limits the value of their evidence. If a person with an intellectual disability is called as a witness, he or she is presumed competent to testify unless that competence is challenged, in which case the matter is settled by a voir dire before the judge prior to the witness being called.

Some of this is explained here:
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canad...monial_Evidence/Competence_and_Compellability

 

[Arnie M]

Wasn't this testimony earlier on that each owned a gun? DM got the gun MS wanted, and MS got a different gun instead? Where is the second gun, which I'm presuming is MS's gun? Or did MS bury his gun and DM's is still out there? Or yes... Are both guns buried?

Very good question .... and yes , there have been several mentions about 2 guns .... here is a bit from Brendan Daly testimony April 5th

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...ept-gun-in-toolbox-friend-testifies-1.3521414

--- Crown Brett Moodie now asking about a toolbox that was seized. "He told me that he got Arthur to move it and he wished he could have gotten a hold of me so I could move it," Daly says

--- Daly says Smich told him a gun was in the toolbox.

--- Daly says it came up when Smich was showing him a YouTube video.

--- Moodie asks what was in that video. "Some ammunition, some zombie bullet thing, he said they went with the gun he wanted, but he didn't end up with that one, and that Dell had gotten the one he wanted," Daly says.

--- Goodman cautions the jury that they cannot use that evidence in reaching a decision about Dellen Millard, only about Smich.

--- "Like I said, he said that the bullets went with a gun that he wanted, but he ended up with a different gun, and that gun ended up in the toolbox."

--- Goodman cautions the jury that they shouldn't be considering that another firearm was mentioned in terms of reaching a verdict in this case.

 

[ILoveDateline]

Please please do not tramp on me. I am in no way being disrespectful or judgemental, or trying to start anything, but I wonder if perhaps Arthur has a bit of a disability. MS stated that no one liked him...that he had pity for him..that he "let" him hang around. He felt the need to be honest and told his mother about the gun, MS was regretting asking him to do it. etc. Could be why he could be easily swayed to take part in the tagging and the retrieval and even going to wrong location. If this is the case, I truly hope they don't call him. Putting him on the stand could not not help anyone in this case and could cause him more grief.

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 36s37 seconds ago
"He's a neighbour. A good friend."

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 40s40 seconds ago
Smich started hanging out with Arthur about the same time as Millard. "He's a neighbour, good friend," Smich says.

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 33s33 seconds ago
Dungey asks about their friendship. Smich says he was a neighbour. Dungey suggests Brendan Daly had said Smich called Arthur his "*****."

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 23s23 seconds ago
Do you call him your *****? "People didn't really like Arthur. In a way I felt bad for him. I let him hang around with us."

Alex Pierson ‏@AlexpiersonAMP 31s32 seconds ago
Smich says he claimed he got his buddy arthur to pick up the toolbox- smich felt badly for arthur. No one liked him. He took pitty on him.

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 23s24 seconds ago
"Do you call him your *****?" People didn't like Arthur, Smich said, and he felt bad, so he let Arthur hang out with him

You're OK with me. I forgot BD and MM didnt have stellar recommendations about his intelligence. Better not the have Arthur up, just as I said, he, presumably, is only going to say he picked up the backpack and toolbox and delivered it to MS. We already know this. No one disputes it. Perhaps he know more about the gun but he isn't a good witness.

 

[Arnie M]

headlights from Yukon would light up DM in front of him
bikes don't have headlights and no streetlights in a forest, so not the same really. Jmo

I understand that , but it was Mark who says he rushed off in the middle of the night on his bike to bury the gun. So either he has night vision or it was not all that dark (my guess is it was within city limits) (park , ravine , forest - with some ambient light.)

Anyway , my point was never about lighting conditions , it was about his (good) memory on convenient things (what DM did with the gun) compared to his (poor) memory of what HE did with the gun

 

[ILoveDateline]

I had the same idea. I figured it might well be an intellectual disability, which is most often invisible. MM in particular referred to Arthur in very derogatory terms, which another poster suggested she would not have used if he actually had an intellectual disability. I agree with that -- in a way. If MM actually knew a person had an intellectual disability, she probably would not speak of him or her using opprobrious epithets. But I suspect she and most others in their circle would not necessarily recognize intellectual disability in a young adult who doesn't have concomitant physical issues, such as sometimes occur with autism, spina bifida, etc. (conditions that may or may not include intellectual disability but which generally have observable physical characteristics).

Although an adult with intellectual disabilities in the mild to moderate range may look quite normal, speak well in everyday situations, he or she will often have trouble fitting in with peers because of the very real developmental differences, of which peers may only be partially aware. They may ascribe the individual's lack of social competence or difficulties in certain situations as due to laziness, stupidity (ordinary stupidity, not a handicap) or just being "weird."

Although the Supreme Court (R. vs. D.A.I.) ruled that people with cognitive handicaps cannot be excluded from being witnesses, especially when they need to speak to abuse or assault, they have to be interrogated carefully and with no "trick" questions or verbal subtleties. In general, they are not usually called as witnesses where they are not directly involved, because their limited comprehension also limits the value of their evidence. If a person with an intellectual disability is called as a witness, he or she is presumed competent to testify unless that competence is challenged, in which case the matter is settled by a voir dire before the judge prior to the witness being called.

Some of this is explained here:
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canad...monial_Evidence/Competence_and_Compellability

Woah, that is some heavy verbiage for a Friday night and I'm about halfway there on a bottle of red. I'm going save this post to reread tomorrow when the copious amounts of wine have worn off (I figured I might as well do it to myself).

 

[canadiangirl]

Yes. I once volunteered with a youth centre and found the "client" I worked with was dishonest. I was told by the organization's director someone who has lied for 18 years doesn't easily just quit lying. It can take another 18 yrs to undo it and retrain. I'm glad MS expresses he's on his way to that, but you don't just turn all the evidence around by the testimony of a drug dealer who cheats and lies. IMO

Kind of what I said the other night how when people lie enough they tend to believe their own lies..

 

[Claroon]

I agree that DM most likely shot Tim, from the driver's seat. deugirtini was pointing out that it would be a good closing for Dungey to get an expert to assert that the shot came from the driver's seat. You said the expert testimony already said that, and I was pointing out that it in fact hadn't. I agree with deugirtini that it would definitely benefit Dungey/MS if they had an expert that would say that.

Thinking about him wearing his murse on the left in the video, and writing with his left hand in the court artist rendering, he may just have had the gun on the left in the truck making it easy to pick up and point it. IMO

 

[Typhoo1961]

I just read a tweet that The Hamilton Spec's Susan Clairmont responded to a few hours ago.

Someone asked Susan this question: "@susanclairmont millard still had to drive to his farm and i am so surprised no cop or a person saw the smashed window or Bosma in it."

Susan's answer was: "It was night. Tim was wrapped in a tarp."

I don't recall Tim being wrapped in a tarp at this point (drive from Bobcat video area to the farm) ever being introduced in testimony? Does anyone else?

I don't recall that either.

 

[Claroon]

I have missed the discussions on here this week because I've been attending the trial each day and then catching up at work during the evenings. Today I quickly skimmed through this week's threads and was shocked to find that so many people believe MS's story. I hope the jury isn't similarly fooled. His story, which conveniently removes him from the murder and the cleanup while pinning it all on DM, is extremely weak IMO. It contains numerous holes and fits awkwardly into the other evidence. What a liar this guy is. I'm looking forward to the Crown going up and ripping him to pieces next week. They will out his lies and make sure his true character -- a violent, evil killer who conspired with DM to murder the owner of a truck -- is revealed to all. JMO.

Glad to hear from someone who was there as to their impressions. Thanks. In person makes a big difference. IMO

 

[Typhoo1961]

Anyway , my point was never about lighting conditions , it was about his (good) memory on convenient things (what DM did with the gun) compared to his (poor) memory of what HE did with the gun

He did remember he buried the gun. He just forgotten where he had buried the gun....which I don't believe for a second.

 

[Typhoo1961]

Woah, that is some heavy verbiage for a Friday night and I'm about halfway there on a bottle of red. I'm going save this post to reread tomorrow when the copious amounts of wine have worn off (I figured I might as well do it to myself).

You're not hiding in some hotel are you?

 

[palisadesk]

Wishful thinking.....I definitely don't see that happening....he is such a narcissist. I would love to be wrong.

Anyone else find it interesting that MS has the SAME lawyer for his 2 murder chargers and DM has his lawyers for this trial, he's representing himself in the WM trial and has another lawyer (the guy who is saying that DM's case can be reopened on the news) for the LB trial?

Interesting, but not surprising. BTW, it's the other way around with DM: he's allegedly representing himself in the LB trial, not in the case of his father's death; that could change, of course. I suspect he's bored to bits and the pretense of defending himself means he gets time to examine the evidence and use a (non-intenet) computer to "prepare." A little diversion.

We haven't heard yet whether the case of WM will go to trial or not, but he does have the Hamilton lawyer Boushey (sp.?) representing him for that, so far.

 

[Arnie M]

That restriction is true in the U.S. (maybe not in all states, I'm not certain of that), but it's not true in Canada. There may be some restrictions on cross-examination that I'm not aware of, but there are many guidelines as to what the cross-examining lawyer should (and should not) do.

This guideline from the Ontario Trial Lawyers' Association is (surprisingly) somewhat humorous but also informative:

http://www.bogoroch.com/media/pdf/crossexamination.pdf

This document is also useful but not quite such a good read:

http://admin.cle.insinc.com/upload_file/document/20100208-162819-32710_14.1_Sigurdson.pdf

One Golden Rule of cross-examination is, Don't ask a question to which you don't already know the answer. So, I suspect some areas which we would love to see the Crown (or DM's team) probe for more details may be bypassed because the cross-examiner does not know the answer to the question he might ask..

Haaaa .... years ago I heard my favorite one .... an old grandmother had shot and killed an intruder (USA)

PROSECUTOR ..... did you shoot the burglar when he broke into your home
GRANDMA ....... yes I did
PROSECUTOR .... but why did you shoot him another 5 times
GRANDMA ...... because that's all the bullets I had

 

[Arnie M]

Woah, that is some heavy verbiage for a Friday night and I'm about halfway there on a bottle of red. I'm going save this post to reread tomorrow when the copious amounts of wine have worn off (I figured I might as well do it to myself).

You're not hiding in some hotel are you?

hehe .... The word "copious" is a dead giveaway