Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #16

[CJPRINCESS]

Its not the key, its just one of a thousand things. Use your common sense. Look at every piece of evidence and to say "well maybe he just felt like sausage and randomly sent a photo".

Meh, I say to myself...DM likes sausages

 

[redheart]

They were presented though.....how can you argue out evidence that was already presented? Wish I knew more about the legal system......to me, if they weren't admissible and they were introduced, that would be grounds for a mistrial or appeal? MOO

Well, the 2 gun thing got mentioned (not by BD) toward the end of the trial and then got argued out.
I can't think of any other reason the crown wouldn't have mentioned those pictures again, even briefly.

 

[andreww]

It seems some of this "professional" arguing is just to create traffic to this site. lol maybe some of the talented writers are one in the same person.

I doubt that. There are always people, especially on a site like this that feel they are more clever than anybody else because the see things from an alternative point of view. It certainly draws attention to their posts but it also encourages discussion which is good.

 

[ILoveDateline]

I don't feel precisely what I expected to feel at this point in the trial. Surely this is all what it looked and felt like it would be, right? Two men who, together, did a terrible, vicious, incomprehensible thing. I am not fully at ease with this in the way I thought I would be.

I was reminded that the Crown is not a beacon of truth but simply another player in the justice system, weaving a story from curated evidence that is no more and no less self-interested that the defense. Sidestepping the earlier truck sightings favour of a tidier and more convenient presentation wasn't without some cynicism. I was not expecting them to pitch the story as two men who plotted for more than a year to steal, murder and incinerate, each element being an indispensable part of the plan. One argument for this was that it doesn't take a year to steal a truck, and yet they had all the elements in place 10 months before Tim was murdered. The arguments lacks an internal consistency and seems precariously and sometimes even gratuitously piled on a record of texts that are at the very least least ambiguous at times. To me there were very clearly weak arguments at times: if your story seems to lean in part on Mark Smich turning his phone off when in reality the evidence weights the other way, I have to ask myself why you feel you need to argue that. Several examples just like that.

I didn't expect to feel so handicapped by trial by Twitter. The, I mean THE thing that pushed me to premeditation was the fireside furniture and sausages texts. It took an outsized meaning here and certainly in my mind and doesn't seem to even have been brought up by Crown in cross. We are missing so much to properly determine guilt, from a complete and unfiltered record to the wealth of information in bearing, body language, facial expressions, tone and all the things we normally use to gauge honesty and intention.

All these things together reminded me of the sobering power of the state and of the collective power of the media to shape narratives and drive public interest or indifference. Wrongful convictions flow from state overreach and greatly benefit from a pubic turned away for one reason or another. Some of the ingredients seem to be in place here and that I think is what leaves me ever so slightly uneasy with this case despite the breadth and depth of the apparent evidence: we have a Crown case that unexpectedly left me scratching my head in spots, the use of rap lyrics to prove an intent to murder, at least one member of the media whose sloppiness heard daily on air spreads ignorance in dribbles or torrents depending on the day, and who directly invites listeners to dismiss Mark Smich on facts she can't even bother to keep straight.

The general wisdom is that juries almost always get it right, so I feel like the best choice for me in this case is simply to defer to that verdict and trust it is rooted in intelligence, collective wisdom and more care for fairness and truth than we've seen from others at times in this case. They know both more and less than we do in all the ways that are supposed to make justice come out right.

Still, the world is not as easily or cleanly divided into good guys and bad guys or truth and lies as we want or imagine it to be. "Sun down in the Paris of the prairies...". It happens everyday, somewhere. And it matters.

BBM

Every time I hear about sausage and fireside furniture text, I laugh. That and the hoses. JB, I generally agree with you but I found your message to be contradictory, if I read it correctly.

I really must look over the fireside furniture and sausages texts to see what the hubbub is all about.

I also laugh about the hoses because I believe there wasn't further evidence to be presented and some people have been waiting for it. Its suspicious that the hoses were ran for 10 hrs and it was brought up in JVs testimony to infer further clean up. IMO, there wasn't further evidence to back that up (or it was argued out) so it was dropped and left to marinate in the jury's mind. I presume it will make it's way in to the closing arguments. Sorry to add this to my response to you, because you hadn't mentioned about it but I thought it tied well with the sausages and fireside furniture as one of those things thrown out there to preplex. JMO.

 

[redheart]

They haven't been argued out, the jury would have been instructed to disregard what the had already heard. They will be used in the closing arguments for sure.

But the pictures were never made part of the exhibit, while the rest of the texts were. I guess we'll find out during deliberations if anything more is said about them.

 

[andreww]

Well, the 2 gun thing got mentioned (not by BD) toward the end of the trial and then got argued out.
I can't think of any other reason the crown wouldn't have mentioned those pictures again, even briefly.

The jury was immediately told to disregard the two gun evidence.

 

[canadiangirl]

For one, they didn't wait 10 months. I can almost guarantee that that incinerator was used on LB soon after its purchase. And god knows who else it may have been used on. As far as the truck theft goes, Smich admits that they had already tried other tactics and failed. Millard has SS building a trailer on a tight deadline so we know he needs that truck soon, either for Baja or the "other purposes" that Smich couldn't mention. Add to that the model of truck was somewhat rare. Then throw in the tidbit that Millard was cash strapped. They had been looking for a while, yes, but the time was right and Millard was taking that truck. So tell me, why is Millard preparing the "BBQ"? Looking for the generator? As Fraser said, there was no evidence that thing had ever been used to burn anything but human remains. Millard makes no effort to hide the fact that he is getting it ready and Smich never questions what the hell he was talking about. This case is about as clear cut as a case comes and it amazes me that some people just can't see it.

All over this statement I see the name "Millard"

 

[JuneBug67]

If your perspective is that this is a total pile of garbage, could you please explain, if you care to, what evidence would meet to your personal satisfaction?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Just to clarify, I didn't mean to imply that I think any particular evidence set in this case is total pile of garbage. The term GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) comes from the data processing world and it means if bad data goes in, bad data is the only thing that is coming out. Processing bad data, or in my analogy, inferring a totality from a series of possibly incorrect interpretations of ambiguous and often disconnected statements, doesn't lead to a reliable result. Wrong interpretations in, bad conclusions out is really what I was trying to say. If the interpretations are unreliable, it doesn't matter if you have 3 pieces of unreliable evidence or 20. It's still unreliable evidence and can't contribute to a reliable whole.

I'm looking for clarity and fairness in evidence and its context and and its interpretation, not perfection. Many of the things that lots of posters find compelling I simply don't because there is either insufficient reason to be confident of a nefarious and relevant interpretation ("fireworks tonight") or in some cases the evidence actually suggests an interpretation that would favour the accused (MS's phone dying vs being turned off).

 

[redheart]

The jury was immediately told to disregard the two gun evidence.

But the pictures were never made part of the exhibit, while the rest of the texts were. I guess we'll find out during deliberations if anything more is said about them.

 

[Sphinx]

Well the sex trade would bring him in $100,000 or more.
MOO

Like I said in a previous post, a few days ago --- I wonder if LB was the victim of a snuff movie ? That would probably make a lot of money.

She may also have been killed because she knew too much, and was unstable because of her drug use. Also, she might have been pregnant, and that would have been an inconvenience for DM too. There could even have been other victims, girls who were " escorts " -- girls no one would go looking for because they no longer had ties to family. IMO

 

[Ontario Mom]

I am curious to know what you would personally accept as proof of premeditation and/or forcible confinement?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Great question, and even though it wasn't directed at me, I'll take the liberty of answering.

Many here have focused on the sausage/fireside furniture pics/texts or at the very least held that up as an example of "see, putting him in the incinerator was planned". And, that may very well be true. Or, it may very well not be. Those pics/texts could have absolutely nothing to do with this crime at all. The same exact way they talked about other things (like oxy, and MS's bad shoulder and planning for an actual barbecue) that had absolutely nothing to do with this crime. This is the problem for me.

If there was a text conversation that specifically spoke of the crime murder, or any mention of bringing a gun on the test drive in the same way they very openly spoke of the crime of stealing a truck, then there'd be no doubt in my mind at all. But there wasn't. There was no text conversation about bringing a gun, shooting a man or incinerating him. Nothing at all on the various devices or even deleted and backed up on the hard drives. Plenty of evidence of pre-planning a truck theft, which MS has never denied, but zero evidence of pre-planning a murder. Just some ambiguous texts about sausages & fireside furniture that the Crown didn't focus on, really at all.

IF there was an plan to kill a man, I'm more inclined to believe it was DM's plan and that's why he bought the gun and brought the gun. IF there are those following this case that have had the benefit of hearing legal arguments that many of us here have not heard, that may explain a few things though.

 

[Ontario Mom]

They were presented though.....how can you argue out evidence that was already presented? Wish I knew more about the legal system......to me, if they weren't admissible and they were introduced, that would be grounds for a mistrial or appeal? MOO

I'm actually rather confused about these texts/pics. I know they were brought up but then never mentioned again and never released as evidence photos like all the others. Can someone point me to the day/article where this was first mentioned in court?

 

[Maple1]

On my iPhone so not sure if quotes will work. This is regarding Fraser question on 50 min visit DM had with MS on May 10 just prior to DM arrest.
-- LE knows this as DM under survellience.
-- IMO, I cannot believe the discussion was not around more hiding of evidence and or what had occurred already, etc. and MS in memoty loss was CYA (cover your *advertiser censored*) mode. Could not say anything in court as it went against his narrative.
-- is this where LE starts watching MS? I think his actual survellience started on May 14? And they let it possibly go on to see what he was up to.
-- DM arrest on May 10. I guess LE would not have probable cause to have warrants to search his properties. And he gave wrong a different home to where he normally stayed. It was Maplegrove that AM was staying and had the MJ removed after call from MS. (Correct?)
It was generally Maplegrove where most of parties were for friends?
-- I bet LE really regrets they could not of gotten warrants sooner.
-- it will be enlightening to see what comes out post trial on how much more evidence was likely suppressed by court debate.
-- would appreciate anyone commenting on 50 min and how they knew.
-- and another topic. The SIM card.
If u power off your phone it does not still ping to a cell tower? Not just turn off but power down to save battery life etc?
Or do u always have to take the SIM card out?
I have iPhone so not sure about SIM card or trying to hide usage. I know someone said something on this matter in previous days w MS on stand by Sachat?
Just FYI: I watched the HBO series years ago called, The Wire and they were constantly using burner phones and or switching SIM (I think) to stay one step ahead of LE. Storyline was cops vs drug dealers, gangs. Series took place in early 80's Baltimore when Cell phones were fairly new? And how LE were learning how to combat this new technology for survellience and or getting warrants, etc.

-- just horrifying to think he may of died within 15 min of leaving home. And for them to not think they would be caught after being seen by TB wife and tenant. I think had the wife and tenant not been outside when they arrived, it may of taken longer to find them. But key for me as evidence and how they were caught was SS father in law calling CS about truck VIN and TB cell records to Bate burner phone that lead to IT and tatto info on DM.

Just glad they were so arrogant and stupid that they left a mountain of evidence, IMO.

 

[andreww]

All over this statement I see the name "Millard"

You just don't get it do you? They have discussions about getting the BBQ ready, what do you thing that meant? What do you thing the sausages meant?

 

[ABro]

But the pictures were never made part of the exhibit, while the rest of the texts were. I guess we'll find out during deliberations if anything more is said about them.

They are an exhibit -- #144.

 

[JuneBug67]

BBM

Every time I hear about sausage and fireside furniture text, I laugh. That and the hoses. JB, I generally agree with you but I found your message to be contradictory, if I read it correctly.

I really must look over the fireside furniture and sausages texts to see what the hubbub is all about.

I also laugh about the hoses because I believe there wasn't further evidence to be presented and some people have been waiting for it. Its suspicious that the hoses were ran for 10 hrs and it was brought up in JVs testimony to infer further clean up. IMO, there wasn't further evidence to back that up (or it was argued out) so it was dropped and left to marinate in the jury's mind. I presume it will make it's way in to the closing arguments. Sorry to add this to my response to you, because you hadn't mentioned about it but I thought it tied well with the sausages and fireside furniture as one of those things thrown out there to preplex. JMO.

I don't think it was contradictory, but perhaps it was unclear! I was only meaning to make the point that something that was such a strong piece of evidence for me didn't even make it to cross examination, and from that I concluded that we are really missing so much that is important to understanding the weight and value of the evidence we try to parse via Twitter. I mean I thought it was THE thing that changed everything with regard to premeditation, and as far as I can tell via Twitter it wasn't even raised with Mark Smich. For me, it was a cautionary tale about how much I could know from this distance.

 

[canadiangirl]

You just don't get it do you? They have discussions about getting the BBQ ready, what do you thing that meant? What do you thing the sausages meant?

Was I there? How am I to know for sure? How do you know for sure? IIRC both MS and AM testified about a BBQ that week. DM had AM invite the girls. I don't hold any validity that sausage pics meant anything more then that. There is no evidence to support my theory or yours. IMO. The fact it was briefly mentioned and nothing more came of it makes it a moot point

 

[Sphinx]

The Crown might argue that it is unlikely TB was shot and killed without warning as they were driving. It may be more reasonable that the gun was pulled (IMO, by MS) and TB was told to not move as they drove to the field where he was killed. It may have been mere seconds or minutes, but he was forcibly confined before being shot.

Once one, or both of them pulled out a gun, would that not constitute forcible confinement ? IMO

 

[andreww]

I don't think it was contradictory, but perhaps it was unclear! I was only meaning to make the point that something that was such a strong piece of evidence for me didn't even make it to cross examination, and from that I concluded that we are really missing so much that is important to understanding the weight and value of the evidence we try to parse via Twitter. I mean I thought it was THE thing that changed everything with regard to premeditation, and as far as I can tell via Twitter it wasn't even raised with Mark Smich. For me, it was a cautionary tale about how much I could know from this distance.

They probably didn't raise the issue in cross because they knew Smich would have a stupid answer for them. Better leave them for closing arguments when they can be used to better effect.

 

[canadiangirl]

They are an exhibit.

Curious as to why aren't they published anywhere