Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #16

[canadiangirl]

Individual details can be given many different meanings, but, in their totality, what is most probable?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes and people are pointing out individual details. All of these together don't fit for me

 

[hellkat2]

Wouldn't searching for a truck on autotrader show preplanning?

And it is also part of evidence that they were looking for a year for one that met their specifications.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

I'm focusing on before. The first degree murder charge is based upon premeditation and forcible confinement. During and after isn't the sticking point for me.

Not both premeditation and forcible confinement ... It is either/or.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[canadiangirl]

Not both premeditation and forcible confinement ... It is either/or.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well either or gives MS a better chance to not be found guilty then IMO

 

[hellkat2]

This is my issue as well, I don't think people realize that you can disregard or ignore witnesses testimony if you have doubts about their honesty. It seems like everyone is so black and white. Either Smich is a liar or he's telling the truth. It's not that way and the judge will explain that. They willbe told they can accept part, all or NONE of the witness testimony to make their decision. For me, if I believe Smich is laying about knowing where the gun is, lying about knowing the gun was in the toolbox, lying about saying TB was gone, gone, gone, then I'd likely have a hard time believing much he did say. So I'd look at someone not involved, like MM, she has no reason to lie. If she says they were celebrating and happy with the mission, I'd believe her. She doesn't have a dog in this fight.

smich is her dog. so i don't trust her testimony either

 

[canadiangirl]

You can explain away anything you want with "maybe this or that happened", but the fact is they were specifically discussing the truck mission when Smich sent the sausage and fireside furniture pictures. There was no response from millard to the effect of "what the heck is that supposed to mean?". Then coincidentally TB ends up in their "BBQ". As to the slim jim, Millard is buying all the tools, windshield removal tool, walkie talkies, change of clothes, but he won't buy the cheap tool that saves him from smashing a window in the middle of the night? Come on.

So why wasn't this brought up in court if this is the key that puts him away for life?

 

[andreww]

Anything is possible. Generally speaking though, the larger point is that the Crown's put forth this evidence as proof that these two were carefully plotting a random crime of theft, murder and the destruction of a body and as soon as each element was in place...they promptly waited 10 months. It's a story, and a weak one at that. We hold weak stories against witnesses and the accused and draw inferences from the fact that they've told, and the Crown should not be excepted from that same rational assessment.

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.

 

[andreww]

So why wasn't this brought up in court if this is the key that puts him away for life?

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".

 

[JuneBug67]

Individual details can be given many different meanings, but, in their totality, what is most probable?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I keep seeing this argument, but individual pieces of evidence have to at least support what they are purported to to contribute to a greater whole. I see a good example of the totality of evidence principle in the example of DM using a burner phone, DM providing a false name and DM/MS concealing the Yukon at both test drives. Each of these things could be explained away in some way: there could be some reason for using a burner phone, maybe Dell gets sick of repeating his uncommon name over the phone and just uses Evan instead, maybe they parked far away because Pedo barked when left alone and they were trying to be considerate etc. etc. whatever. But taken together, there can't really be any reasonable doubt that these actions were related and a reasonable person will conclude that they were hiding their identities in furtherance of a crime. "Bring a change of clothes", "fireworks tonight",, "see about the BBQ for this week" are all much more ambiguous and loosely connected and the possibility of misinterpretation is much greater. In that case the risk and I others see is that more garbage in just equals more garbage out, and your only 'totality' is a total pile of garbage on some of these points.

 

[Lexiintoronto]

Just had a thought about a line of questioning Fraser had yesterday.

He was asking MS about if Tim was worried or realizing something was "off" about the test drive. I guess if they could get MS to say that Tim was uncomfortable yet he was given no chance to leave the truck, that might show his forcible confinement?

MOO.

To be convicted with forcible confinement, the Crown must prove that the individual forced the victim to remain in one place using threats, coercion or physical restraint.

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.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Well either or gives MS a better chance to not be found guilty then IMO

A better chance? In what way?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[JuneBug67]

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.

There is no evidence about LB in this case of course, and in this case the Crown is very directly saying that the plan included an incineration, not that it was eventually incidental to a truck that Dellen eventually decided he needed in the spring. I'm simply holding them to the story that they decided to tell, and on this point it's a weak story. I'm left asking myself why they've taken this seemingly strong evidence and decided to tell a weak story.

 

[Typhoo1961]

And btw, if your pal had just blown a guy's head off for no reason and then told you to follow him to his deserted farm (and lock the gate behind you), would you? Not bloody likely!

And yet, someone did.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

I keep seeing this argument, but individual pieces of evidence have to at least support what they are purported to contribute to a greater whole. I see a good example of the totality of evidence principal in the example of DM using a burner phone, DM providing a false name and DM/MS concealing the Yukon at both test drives. Each of these things could be explained away in some way: there could be some reason for using a burner phone, maybe Dell gets sick of repeating his uncommon name over the phone and just uses Evan instead, maybe they parked far away because Pedo barked when left alone and they were trying to be considerate etc. etc. whatever. But taken together, there can't really be any reasonable doubt that these actions were related and a reasonable person will conclude that they were hiding their identities in furtherance of a crime. "Bring a change of clothes", "fireworks tonight",, "see about the BBQ for this week" are all much more ambiguous and loosely connected and the possibility of misinterpretation is much greater. In that case the risk and I others see is that more garbage in just equals more garbage out, and your only 'totality' is a total pile of garbage on some of these points.

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[redheart]

What I'm getting at is, I don't see proof of MS' knowledge this murder was going to occur, I don't see proof of forcible confinement by MS.
By what I'm reading, because he accompanied Millard on this "mission" that makes him guilty of first degree murder? I don't agree.

The BBQ, fireworks and sausage texts would've been heavily focused on by the crown if that was the key evidence. It was glazed over IMO
As I stated, anyone can take texts out of context. Fireworks tonight! I would interpret that to mean, "IT'S SHOW TIME!", as in, we're stealing a truck.
Not sure why that's a big deal? We all know the theft was a part of the plan.

Snipped for space, BBM


I think the sausage and fireside furniture texts have been argued out and we'll hear about that during deliberations. MOO

 

[andreww]

And yet, someone did.

Exactly, because he was in on it, not because he was "scared sir".

 

[Lexiintoronto]

There is no evidence about LB in this case of course, and in this case the Crown is very directly saying that the plan included an incineration, not that it was eventually incidental to a truck that Dellen eventually decided he needed in the spring. I'm simply holding them to the story that they decided to tell, and on this point it's a weak story. I'm left asking myself why they've taken this seemingly strong evidence and decided to tell a weak story.

The Crown still has closing arguments remaining in order to state their case.

 

[RandomName479]

Snipped for space, BBM


I think the sausage and fireside furniture texts have been argued out and we'll hear about that during deliberations. MOO

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

 

[andreww]

Snipped for space, BBM


I think the sausage and fireside furniture texts have been argued out and we'll hear about that during deliberations. MOO

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.

 

[mimimic]

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.