Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #16

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
One more thing that actually speaks volumes to me, Mark Smich never once spoke to police, or came clean to police even after he was arrested. He waited in jail for 3 years and listened to all the evidence, before spinning a tale that suited his needs. An innocent man, would have started singing long before now and telling the cops what happened, especially if he was really innocent.

This rings true to me. Bear with me for a moment and help me reason this out.....

Knowing that TD could not put MS on the stand and knowingly have him lie (ethically at least....and he seems like a straight up guy)....don't we have to assume MS's story on the stand is basically the same one he told TD 3 years ago?

And if that's the case, is there ever a reason a lawyer who believes his client to be innocent would advise them to keep their mouth shut, spend 3 years behind bars, and then only "come clean" on the witness stand?
 
Has anyone found that exhibit #144 pictures of the fireside furniture and sausages yet?

According to NP's Adrian Humphreys Twitter feed, exhibit #144 was a 'view only' exhibit. The press could report the content, but not publish the photo in order to protect 'bystander's' personal information. (Tweets are from today, a couple of hours ago).

https://twitter.com/AD_Humphreys/with_replies
 
Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 4m4 minutes ago
They just revised the #TimBosma trial schedule - the jury will now be back on May 31 when closing arguments will begin. #Bosma #HamOnt #sc

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 4m4 minutes ago
The jury is in the #Bosma trial is actually going to be back Tuesday (not Wed) after a schedule revision. Closing arguments will begin then.

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 7m7 minutes ago
In court for #Bosma legal args. Judge has changed schedule. Jury now coming back Tuesday for Millard closing args. @CHCHNews

They must have read our comments last night about how they are dragging their heels after 3 long years, and let's finish it so the family can move on!
 
And I need I send a huge shout out to billandrew.......if there was a websleuth member of the year award I would nominate you! And all of our members would vote for you. You have spent countless hours developing and updating easy to read timelines and resources. You are always thoughtful and respectful. And I value all of your contributions to this site. My hat goes off to you my friend. Take a bow.
 
This rings true to me. Bear with me for a moment and help me reason this out.....

Knowing that TD could not put MS on the stand and knowingly have him lie (ethically at least....and he seems like a straight up guy)....don't we have to assume MS's story on the stand is basically the same one he told TD 3 years ago?

No, there are way too many unknowns. That's a huge leap to a conclusion.

Is there ever a reason a lawyer who believes his client to be innocent would advise them to keep their mouth shut, spend 3 years behind bars, and then only "come clean" on the witness stand?

Yes there's a reason -- because the lawyer believes it's the best chance their client has -- but whether the lawyer believes the client to be innocent is irrelevant. The lawyer's job is to ensure the client gets a fair trial. It's not the lawyer's job to determine guilt or innocence.
 
No, there are way too many unknowns. That's a huge leap to a conclusion.



Yes, because the lawyer believes it's the best chance their client has, but whether he believes the client to be innocent is irrelevant.

So a lawyer would advise their client to take the stand not knowing what their version of the story would be? Very few objections from Dungey when MS was up on cross. He let NS hammer away at him for days. Very risky IMO
 
According to NP's Adrian Humphreys Twitter feed, exhibit #144 was a 'view only' exhibit. The press could report the content, but not publish the photo in order to protect 'bystander's' personal information. (Tweets are from today, a couple of hours ago).

https://twitter.com/AD_Humphreys/with_replies

But he says:

Adrian Humphreys ‏@AD_Humphreys 3h3 hours ago
@CosyHearth @FirefliesinTO We were allowed to publish, and I have, the photos attached to the txt msgs. Hope that helps.
 
I don't understand that at all. They aren't gruesome pictures if it's simply a frying pan with sausages. I've seen some pretty disturbing things released in this trial. I wouldn't think that was one of them.
I agree with you. But I have never actually seen the pictures in any media releases. They were only described on Twitter. Think they would have been out some where. So thinking they were never released? Jmo
 
But he says:

Adrian Humphreys ‏@AD_Humphreys 3h3 hours ago
@CosyHearth @FirefliesinTO We were allowed to publish, and I have, the photos attached to the txt msgs. Hope that helps.
Most helpful thank you!!
 
But he says:

Adrian Humphreys ‏@AD_Humphreys 3h3 hours ago
@CosyHearth @FirefliesinTO We were allowed to publish, and I have, the photos attached to the txt msgs. Hope that helps.

:) I heart him:

[video=twitter;735996903528271872]https://twitter.com/AD_Humphreys/status/735996903528271872[/video]

ETA: I read only read his first tweets about the 'view only' before my last post. Missed the one where he said he could publish the photos.
 
Most helpful thank you!!

Now he has tweeted:

Adrian Humphreys ‏@AD_Humphreys 4m4 minutes ago
.@... @...By popular demand (!) I undertake to post video on the mysterious and elusive Exhibit #144. Maybe tonight #Bosma
 
They are an exhibit -- #144.

Thanks, off to look for it.

According to NP's Adrian Humphreys Twitter feed, exhibit #144 was a 'view only' exhibit. The press could report the content, but not publish the photo in order to protect 'bystander's' personal information. (Tweets are from today, a couple of hours ago).

https://twitter.com/AD_Humphreys/with_replies

Interesting, I can understand the furniture if this was a "mission" that MS tagged (which I suspected before) but sausages in a pan? Was he going to steal sausages from someone?
 
That's not what I or anyone else said.

I can't multi quote properly from my phone but randomname asked..
Knowing that TD could not put MS on the stand and knowingly have him lie (ethically at least....and he seems like a straight up guy)....don't we have to assume MS's story on the stand is basically the same one he told TD 3 years ago?



No, there are way too many unknowns. That's a huge leap to a conclusion.


For which I replied, so a lawyer would advise to take the stand not knowing the story his client would tell?
 
Now he has tweeted:

Adrian Humphreys ‏@AD_Humphreys 4m4 minutes ago
.@... @...By popular demand (!) I undertake to post video on the mysterious and elusive Exhibit #144. Maybe tonight #Bosma

Some pesky WSers...
 
And I need I send a huge shout out to billandrew.......if there was a websleuth member of the year award I would nominate you! And all of our members would vote for you. You have spent countless hours developing and updating easy to read timelines and resources. You are always thoughtful and respectful. And I value all of your contributions to this site. My hat goes off to you my friend. Take a bow.

Ditto!! Great post!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I don't have a legal background, but I don't think the mere act of pulling out a gun constitutes forcible confinement.
oh i think a gun pointing straight at someone makes them feel largely confined!!
 
No, there are way too many unknowns. That's a huge leap to a conclusion.

Yes there's a reason -- because the lawyer believes it's the best chance their client has -- but whether the lawyer believes the client to be innocent is irrelevant. The lawyer's job is to ensure the client gets a fair trial. It's not the lawyer's job to determine guilt or innocence.

Is it true that if MS told TD that he either a) shot TB or b) was in the truck when TB was shot, that TD could not put him on the stand if he knew MS was going to lie? (I understand there are unethical lawyers, just like any profession....but more as a general rule of thumb).

Granted, MS could have said very little even to TD and only come up with his version of events after discovery......could a lawyer suggest a version of events to their client?

Appreciate your input. I'm not trying to be difficult....i'm just taking longer to get there than some people....and helpful and informative answers to these kinds of questions are useful in moving the conversation along. mOO
 
For me? First I took the idea of 'poor Mark' (duped by Millard) and his testimony out of the whole issue
reasons?
1. Self-serving testimony that revealed little or no new info on how HE was guilty (that wasn't already backed up by other evidence)
2. memory was VERY selective and not usually forthcoming (pretty good at remembering details from past (eg. employment, employer, what Marlene had with her when she left home) but recalls very little that has to do with the crime that hasn't already been evidenced in the trial...doesn't even want to guess how long the spade was (used to bury the gun)..or what Millards last convo with him was when heat was closing in)

so then I have Millard (guilty via soooo much evidence) and a second guy who is with him
I looked at:
1. The texts between them....they were obviously close buds...talked a lot about a lot including the BBQ...what strikes me especially is how the tone or friendliness doesn't change at all through the whole thing...He still asks Millard to chill with him after the murder.
2. This second individual claims to have NO IDEA about a gun or the possibility of violence on this mission...and yet he his able to change the licence plate, drive to the farm, cut bloody carpet and seatbelts with a bum shoulder, wash all the blood from the truck and do this knowing a human being who he was sitting with a few hours ago...whose wife he met in the driveway was just brutally murdered and burned...I find this so incredibly unbelievable...that he just 'went along'.

I picture an unknowing petty thief/artist in that situation, and I can see him freaking out...swearing at Millard...or in shock, unable to even function...but after presumably seeing his first murdered human being, his hands don't shake while changing the licence plate, or driving to the farm, or closing the gate or cleaning up the blood and truck and remains. He doesn't feel queasy at the sight of Tim's blood or his body, he goes home afterwards and sleeps (no waking up in a cold sweat, no nightmares...just sleep) and in the days that follow, he reaches out to Millard...asks for updates...prepares for the wedding...unbelievable behaviour for someone who had NO IDEA any violence was going to happen that night and witnessed all that he had. If it's denial, you don't ask for updates....if it's fear, you don't initiate conversations..if it's planned, you do both.
3. His own gf, who knew him very well...who would presumably know if he was faking (with him 24/7), testifies that this man was happy and said the mission went well.

There is lots of other evidences, but I guess those are the ones that come first to my mind. There is (outside the juryroom) the knowledge that there is enough evidence against him for LB's murder to bring him to trial...this tells me that this is not the first heinous violent crime he has ever been exposed to...the gun was bought for a purpose and while there was a time when I wondered if he truly was innocent in knowing about the murder/burning, for me I just go back to those evidences and there is not a reasonable doubt in my mind that he is guilty of 1st degree

Such excellent points! Thank you.


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

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
253
Guests online
1,998
Total visitors
2,251

Forum statistics

Threads
599,671
Messages
18,098,004
Members
230,898
Latest member
Maia1919
Back
Top