Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #16

[Coldpizza]

Does court resume tues or wed this week?

Court resumes tomorrow morning.

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC May 26
They just revised the #TimBosma trial schedule - the jury will now be back on May 31 when closing arguments will begin.

https://twitter.com/adamcartercbc?lang=en

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Who would you need to dismember to fit in an 18 (or whatever) foot high, wide-as-a-barrel rocket ship incinerator?

IIRC, that was in reference to a smaller version of the Eliminator than the one that ended up being purchased.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Ontario Mom]

Fair enough, I can see the need to get away from all the back and forth and come back for closing arguments with a rested mind, but I recommend you review exhibit 144 posted over the weekend and billandrew's synopsis of the implications of the text messages as it fits into the time line.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

I have and I have come to my own conclusion based on the established timeline. This of course is subject to the Crown's closing statement.

 

[JuneBug67]

You are quite mistaken when you say a Crown's role is to win.

Every Crown has a duty to ensure that the justice system is applied fairly to all ... Even the defendants.

Great read here:

https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/crim/cpm/2005/CPMPreamble.pdf




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The crown wants to win, and in this case anything less than a conviction for first degree will be seen as a loss. They want to win for themselves, their assistants, their families, their communities, their pride and their reputations. They're lawyers and human beings. They want to win and they conduct themselves accordingly. I appreciate the links to the motherhood statements, but anybody who thinks that crown attorneys are inert vehicles of objectivity and fairness and justice for all would eventually be disappointed if you got close enough. They represent an interest just like defense attorneys. That interest and what actually happened diverges regularly.

 

[billandrew]

You've obviously never been up close to somebody being yanked through the justice system in this country. Lucky you. People are people and the reality can be very different in practice. I'm not meaning to be disparaging to individual prosecutors or malign any specific reputation. It's just in my observation that in general it's about processing cases and winning them rather than seeking the best truth available. I've found it's good judges that sort through it all and make the difference. I actually look forward to the charge in this case more than the closing arguments.

It's an adversarial system, no doubt, but I don't see that the Crown lawyers have a vested interest in "winning" in the same way the defence lawyers do. It would be unethical to hand out bonuses or promotions based on the number of successful convictions.

To be fair, I really don't know a lot about the judicial system since this is the only trial I've ever followed closely. However, my observation of the Crown lawyers in this case is that they're ordinary people just doing their job. Moodie was absent one day recently because his wife delivered their child. They just don't strike me as the type of people who want to see an accused get a life sentence unless they're absolutely convinced of it.

They seem like people who understand the law, respect it, and take pride in upholding the ethics and integrity of it. I could always be wrong but that's my impression, anyway.

 

[JuneBug67]

It's an adversarial system, no doubt, but I don't see that the Crown lawyers have a vested interest in "winning" in the same way the defence lawyers do. It would be unethical to hand out bonuses or promotions based on the number of successful convictions.

To be fair, I really don't know a lot about the judicial system since this is the only trial I've ever followed closely. However, my observation of the Crown lawyers in this case is that they're ordinary people just doing their job. Moodie was absent one day recently because his wife delivered their child. They just don't strike me as the type of people who want to see an accused get a life sentence unless they're absolutely convinced of it.

They seem like people who understand the law, respect it, and take pride in upholding the ethics and integrity of it. I could always be wrong but that's my impression, anyway.

I agree for the most part, but none of this is really inconsistent with what in saying. They play a role in an adversarial system. They are handed a case and they curate and present it in a way that seeks to convict the accused. Think for example of the crown insisting that Mark Smich turned off his phone when it probably did just actually die, or of the crown case simply sidestepping the earlier Ram sightings presumably for the sake of avoiding acknowledging that an officer might have screwed up a timestamp check and keeping a tidy timeline. They're telling a story, they're partisan, and they are spinmasters as much as the counsel on the other side.

 

[NashBridges2]

Agreed. Closing arguments tomorrow should hopefully bring more clarity for everyone. Regardless it'll be up to the jury. They have a ton of things to consider as we all have been doing.

I think they will have a decision fairly quickly, I find some posts here just post what they know what cause drama and arguments. I've stayed away the last few days because of the repetitive, non stop posts. I think the jury has bonded, heard way more than we have, witnessed with their own eyes. It won't take them long to find them both guilty.

 

[Tealgrove]

I think they will have a decision fairly quickly, I find some posts here just post what they know what cause drama and arguments. I've stayed away the last few days because of the repetitive, non stop posts. I think the jury has bonded, heard way more than we have, witnessed with their own eyes. It won't take them long to find them both guilty.

Absolutely agree. It's time to get on with it and see Justice for Tim.

I don't believe it will take that long either.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Scenario 2

Despite what the Crown asserts, DM commissioned a homemade incinerator from Shane Schlatman with the intention that it would be used to burn materials produced from work at his buildings. MS understood this to be the use as well and they travelled to the hangar in May to assess or move or work with the tall, rocket shaped incinerator with this purpose in mind. MS's interest in the project was as a friend and helper tagging along to check out a gadget.

Please thank if you agree.

My assumed timeline would be (IMO MOO):

2012 SS creates a homemade incinerator by order of boss DM.
2012 LB has to disappear after killing her by perhaps DM/MS.
2012 The homemade incinerator is used for LB's human remains but unsuccessful.
- 2013 by MSN: TB burned "NOT as a whole body" (don't want to express with other words) inside a barrel. "Barrels" were used to build the homemade incinerator. As we learned later on TB didn't get burned in the homemade incinerator but in the Eliminator. If LE found evidence of charred remains in a barrel, I would assume the remains to be LB's.

2012 The brand new Eliminator is used for human remains (LB) after burning them in a barrel/homemade incinerator failed. Now the process is successful (I would imagine a ride of DM/MS back home "celebrating their premiere and hopping in their seats").
2012 Death of WM - incinerating is not possible because WM would be missed and the beneficiary/heir DM would have a huge problem.
2013 Death of TB. DM/MS use their acquired know-how burning human remains inside the Eliminator. Experts in the TB trial confirm the Eliminator was already used before to burn human remains.

 

[XiolaBlueX]

I'm completely on board with the Criwn's thrill kill theory. I think the evidence fully justifies it, and I think both were on board.
E.g. MS's comment about 'chopping' required for one incinerator model they researched? I'm sure he was referring to the need to dismember a body to fit it (as alleged in the Criwn's cross examination)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hb6kEtpLa8cHCVorBuy4yqfHymGvhfHeM6s8QMWGVW8/pubhtml

I was looking over timeline today and noticed that it had the quote from MS referrimg to chopping "wood" which could be quite different contextSmich texts Millard: "I'm lookin at a mobile one right now. Some chopping wood be necessary."

Of course, this could just be a typo? Thought I'd mention it.

To add that - I originally felt that"chopping" could just be referring to modifications to the unit and/or trailer, etc (in the context of 'chop shop' type thing. IMO only. Of course there is another potential gut wrenching context too, so I understand the reactions.

Lastly - I just looked up chop under urban dictionary and saw that it mentioned number 4. As one of the "definitions" .

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chop

chop
To sell marijuana. At least used in areas around Toronto, Canada but likely in many other places as well.

To make a chop means the same thing.
"I'm gonna start chopin' as soon as the summer's over, bring in some mad cash yo."

1:"Where's Faeyman at?
2:"Making a chop at that party we were just at, chill"
#weed #sell #drug #hussel #deal

 

[Dutchman]

It will be interesting to hear the closing arguments. I can't imagine DM s lawyer being able to fill a whole day of my client is not guilty. But then again, they have been known to ask two questions differently for almost two hours. Lol. If MS gets less than 1sr degree, I would think it is mostly due to his great lawyer who coached him well over the past years. To clean up, get an education, and stick to your story. My hat goes off to the crown, for gathering the evidence needed, and doing a most difficult job of trying to get two 1st degrees without a murder weapon and no body. Does anyone know, will we hear the charge from judge to jury? I would love to use his instruction to the jury, and see if my mind about these two change because it.

 

[JuneBug67]

IIRC, that was in reference to a smaller version of the Eliminator than the one that ended up being purchased.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The crown claimed that comment related to the homemade incinerator. The rocket ship one that looks like it could fit a quartet of Toronto Raptors on each other's shoulders. It's a good emample of what I mean by the crown spinning a story as much as anybody else in the courtroom.

 

[canadiangirl]

I think they will have a decision fairly quickly, I find some posts here just post what they know what cause drama and arguments. I've stayed away the last few days because of the repetitive, non stop posts. I think the jury has bonded, heard way more than we have, witnessed with their own eyes. It won't take them long to find them both guilty.

Yes I agree posts can become repetitive because it's a matter of people not being able to accept that others may see things differently. I don't think it has anything to do with drama or arguments. Rather then accept this fact they choose to be in your face that their opinion somehow trumps yours... And that's where the issues can arise.
I've seen a lot of posters from both sides debate effectively without having the, "I'm right syndrome". MOO

 

[ArianeEmory]

I think they will have a decision fairly quickly, I find some posts here just post what they know what cause drama and arguments. I've stayed away the last few days because of the repetitive, non stop posts. I think the jury has bonded, heard way more than we have, witnessed with their own eyes. It won't take them long to find them both guilty.

I'm only popping in now and then trying to dodge missiles, but when I do I mostly see intelligent posters sincerely struggling with some of the details and having (respectful) debates with other similarly intelligent posters.

I'm not seeing too many obvious ulterior motives/trolls like back in the day, but I admittedly have a well curated ignore list.

 

[Notanotherusername]

(Apparently I didn't hit the quote properly, but in reference to the earlier post about other Say10 tags)

There seem to be plenty all around the world (saw a few tagged as being from Sao Paulo), not exactly a creative name.

Was there ever evidence presented as to where the police looked for the buried gun? I remember seeing a 'Say10' tag on the north west side overpass of the QEW, just past the Canadian Tire (if headed south on north service/Kerr. I remember thinking 'thats a really s***y tag and style').

Given that through that area would be the most likely route to take from his mother's house to MMs sisters apartment on Speers, that stretch between CT and the QEW and 16 mile Creek would almost seem ideal to bury a gun. Little pedestrian traffic, easy to get off and back onto the normal path, little possibility of being interrupted, and given the tag, easier to remember should the need exist to recover it later or instruct someone to its location.

Like many others, I still think he knows exactly where it is.

Purely my own opinion.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

It will be interesting to hear the closing arguments. I can't imagine DM s lawyer being able to fill a whole day of my client is not guilty. But then again, they have been known to ask two questions differently for almost two hours. Lol. If MS gets less than 1sr degree, I would think it is mostly due to his great lawyer who coached him well over the past years. To clean up, get an education, and stick to your story. My hat goes off to the crown, for gathering the evidence needed, and doing a most difficult job of trying to get two 1st degrees without a murder weapon and no body. Does anyone know, will we hear the charge from judge to jury? I would love to use his instruction to the jury, and see if my mind about these two change because it.

Yes we are lucky ... We will hear Justice Goodman's charge to the jury via tweets, in addition to all the closing arguments.

Susan Clairmont tweeted earlier today that the Crown's closing will also be available to be published as a transcript in its entirety, and Pillay might allow that to be done but it isn't certain, and Dungey's closing will only be via tweets because he doesn't write his closing arguments down on paper ... It is all in his head [emoji4]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Claroon]

I think they will have a decision fairly quickly, I find some posts here just post what they know what cause drama and arguments. I've stayed away the last few days because of the repetitive, non stop posts. I think the jury has bonded, heard way more than we have, witnessed with their own eyes. It won't take them long to find them both guilty.

I agree with you Nash about repetitive posts almost created to incite antagonism. I am using the "block" feature myself. No more headaches needed by round and round the garden opinions. I agree that the jury had first-hand insight into everything and they know much better than any of us do.

 

[billandrew]

I agree for the most part, but none of this is really inconsistent with what in saying. They play a role in an adversarial system. They are handed a case and they curate and present it in a way that seeks to convict the accused. Think for example of the crown insisting that Mark Smich turned off his phone when it probably did just actually die, or of the crown case simply sidestepping the earlier Ram sightings presumably for the sake of avoiding acknowledging that an officer might have screwed up a timestamp check and keeping a tidy timeline. They're telling a story, they're partisan, and they are spinmasters as much as the counsel on the other side.

I'm holding faith in the system to do the "right" thing as opposed to being "in it to win it". I recognize the need for a healthy level of skepticism as well, and that's exactly what the defence counsel, jurors, and system of public accountability are there for.

Also, in this case I don't see nearly the level of spin from the Crown as from the two defenses. When the Crown did spin something, it was more to counter the accused's spin than to pursue an inappropriate conviction. As Noodles quoted from the Supreme Court statement, the purpose of the Crown prosecution is to present the evidence to the jury, not to obtain a conviction.

 

[Webulls]

I think they will have a decision fairly quickly, I find some posts here just post what they know what cause drama and arguments. I've stayed away the last few days because of the repetitive, non stop posts. I think the jury has bonded, heard way more than we have, witnessed with their own eyes. It won't take them long to find them both guilty.

I agree. I think the jury comes back very quickly on this. The whole trial was a bloody waste of time. Not guilty? Give me a break! They should have pled guilty instead of putting the Bosma family through even more torture, not to mention costing/wasting taxpayers millions of dollars. They saw the evidence in disclosure. They should have known their goose was cooked.

If I was on the jury I would be asking why in God's name did they plead not guilty? Are you joking? I would be rightfully offended by the insult to my intelligence.

With all the evidence presented, I'm sure the jury is champing at the bit to put these sick and demented ****s in prison for the rest of their lives, where they rightfully belong.

This is a crime of historic proportions in Canada. An innocent husband, father, son, and all around great man was murdered and incinerated by 2 putrid ****s. And it saddens me deeply that some people treat it like a movie, or some kind of entertainment. Justice for Tim Bosma will come swiftly because their guilt is as clear as day. When you stop treating it like a form of entertainment, it will be crystal clear to you too.

 

[Typhoo1961]

I agree. I think the jury comes back very quickly on this. The whole trial was a bloody waste of time. Not guilty? Give me a break! They should have pled guilty instead of putting the Bosma family through even more torture, not to mention costing/wasting taxpayers millions of dollars. They saw the evidence in disclosure. They should have known their goose was cooked.

If I was on the jury I would be asking why in God's name did they plead not guilty? Are you joking? I would be rightfully offended by the insult to my intelligence.

With all the evidence presented, I'm sure the jury is champing at the bit to put these sick and demented ****s in prison for the rest of their lives, where they rightfully belong.

This is a crime of historic proportions in Canada. An innocent husband, father, son, and all around great man was murdered and incinerated by 2 putrid ****s. And it saddens me deeply that some people treat it like a movie, or some kind of entertainment. Justice for Tim Bosma will come swiftly because their guilt is as clear as day. When you stop treating it like a form of entertainment, it will be crystal clear to you too.

In DM's mind he is innocent.