Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #16

[JuneBug67]

But that's not at all fair to paint it as the interpretation of MS texts possibly sending him to prison for 25 years. The texts are only part of the evidence against him. If you focus on any one piece of evidence there's always an alternate explanation. Same goes for DM.

Individual pieces of evidence have to have independent reliability and soundness to contribute meaningfully to the whole of a body of evidence. For some, this series of texts does not meet that mark. And as any piece of reliable evidence can contribute to an entirety that convicts a person, it is appropriate to bear in mind the gravity of that whether thinking about one piece of evidence or ten. There's nothing unfair about reminding somebody of that.

 

[Ontario Mom]

It was Hagerman in reference to his and AM cutting ties and no longer being friends after that day.

Thanks, I'm getting my friends and associates mixed up. The question is still curious though, who was doing the lying and what exactly were they lying about? Something to cover for DM, or some lie about MS? Neither of these guys were MS's friends, they were DM's friends. I seriously doubt either one would feel compelled to lie on behalf of Smich, but lie about him? Yeah, I can see that.

 

[RandomName479]

Thanks, I'm getting my friends and associates mixed up. The question is still curious though, who was doing the lying and what exactly were they lying about? Something to cover for DM, or some lie about MS? Neither of these guys were MS's friends, they were DM's friends. I seriously doubt either one would feel compelled to lie on behalf of Smich, but lie about him? Yeah, I can see that.

To be fair, BD was MS's friend and not friends with DM. And BD was the one who testified that MS had gotten a gun.

But absolutely either AM or MH was lying....their stories didn't line up.....and they couldn't both be telling the truth. MOO

 

[canadiangirl]

So this brings me to another MS thought I had.
A lot of posters commenting how MS didn't SEEM scared and was a willing participant to help clean up in the days following.
And he only "freaked out, after DM was arrested" so he must've known this plan all along for murder.

I'm not making excuses for anyone, I'm looking at it from all angles.

Put yourself in someone else's shoes. It's ignorant to say how someone should react.
(I'm thinking of people who don't cry during media pleas for missing family members so it must mean they are involved somehow).

The guy you go on this "mission" with, changes the plan and a man is murdered.
At that point, if you believe some or all of testimonies, MS didn't drive very much, had no license (I assume this since DM said they'd get him his G1), had no highway driving experience, did not know the area, and was following along.

For those who say he should've gone for help, I'm not so sure. He was just witness and clearly he was there when a murder took place. He's known to police.
I don't think any of the DM posse did the right thing in this case, including his own mother. So I'm not sure why it's expected MS would??? But ok.

So let's say they get back to the hanger, DM says, clean this mess up.
So MS does this, as most everyone just does what DM says. And then they discuss how to clean up and cover up.
We're in this together, you have my back bro, etc etc. we're brothers, I'll pay you back for this (giving him the Caddy etc)

MS is scared, but acts normal, because he doesn't want to sell DM up the river. Also keep in mind it's been mentioned many times how family is important to MS.
DM, after trying to get all his family involved in his crap, not so much IMO. (Truck in mother's driveway, using uncle for a cover for a pet cremation story, giving a good family friend for years the murder weapon, etc)

The days leading up to DM's arrest, MS is acting normal, sees and text DM, because after all, they are covering this up, nothing to be afraid of right?
Then DM is arrested. And he ends up with the murder weapon that DM said he took care of (whether MS asked for the toolbox or not, I guess people need to decide if he knew it was in there)

Soooo, who wouldn't freak out at this point?? (regardless about where the gun is, he needs to now find a way to get rid of it, even if he knew the gun was in the toolbox, it's still all on him now, DM is arrested)

All my opinion and speculation of course.

And let's not forget DM's own letters talking about framing the guy.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Individual pieces of evidence have to have independent reliability and soundness to contribute meaningfully to the whole of a body of evidence. For some, this series of texts does not meet that mark. And as any piece of reliable evidence can contribute to an entirety that convicts a person, it is appropriate to bear in mind the gravity of that whether thinking about one piece of evidence or ten. There's nothing unfair about reminding somebody of that.

For me personally, part of the reason it doesn't meet the mark is because I'm in text conversations every single day with most of my 7 kids and my husband. If I took a screen shot of the conversations with any of them, it would be SO easy to assume they mean something other than what they do. We might say something in text that we'd spoken face to face about but there's no real context in the text conversation and/or we don't elaborate at all so it could easily be misunderstood by someone on the outside looking in.

For example (and this is real text I sent hubby last night "you will forget all about crazy nights in the box". Then he replied "lol". No it doesn't mean anything creepy, but it sure could be interpreted in numerous ways, yes? And what if I were arrested for locking someone in a box? Everyone would be all "see!!! she's done it before!!"

I looked through all my text conversations and found loads of other examples that could be misread the exact same way. I just have to wonder if some aren't reading these texts and seeing what they think supports their theory or opinion, even if they're completely out of context. Or, maybe I'm just blind and can't see it. I guess it could be either way.

 

[RandomName479]

That might be all that's being debated at the moment, but it's simply not true that the texts are the only evidence against MS or the only evidence ever discussed. The texts most definitely are not the only evidence that will decide whether MS gets 1st degree or not.

Not trying to be dense....take away the texts.....what evidence do you see for premeditation for MS? I'm in a position where I would really like to be convinced that MS is guilty of 1st degree....someone just needs to spell it out for me....and the texts aren't doing it ....too ambiguous for me....and they leave enough doubt (reasonable IMO) that they could mean something else.

 

[Ontario Mom]

To be fair, BD was MS's friend and not friends with DM. And BD was the one who testified that MS had gotten a gun.

But absolutely either AM or MH was lying....their stories didn't line up.....and they couldn't both be telling the truth. MOO

Yes, yes he did. I wouldn't even know where to look in the timeline but did BD say he ever saw the gun? Or could this be a load of BS handed to him by MS, just to make MS feel all gangster and impress BD?

 

[TOR]

I've expanded my timeline to include as many texts and other evidence as I could find going back to February 9, 2012. Nearly 225 rows were added today.

Some interesting points:

• On April 15, 2012, Millard texted Smich, "five fingered you some practice ammo", which was followed by a conversation about .380 vs 9 mm ammo. This implies that a gun was intended to be used by Smich since Millard got the ammo for him.
• On May 28, 2012, in the midst of Millard getting Schlatman to build a homemade incinerator, Millard texted Smich, "we go [to] incinerator, cool?" And Smich replied, "Yo I'm down bro." This suggests that the incinerator had some importance to both of them.
• On July 7, 2012, just a few days after Laura Babcock is alleged to have been murdered, Smich wrote rap lyrics about his "380 is no stranger, when I'm angered you're in danger." The jury in this trial cannot speculate on Babcock, but the rap lyrics on their own tie Smich to the same type of gun that was allegedly used to kill Bosma.
• On August 20, 2012, during a text conversation about prepping for their missions, Smich stated that he was going to see Isho the following day. The context suggests that seeing Isho had some relation to the mission prep, and based on other evidence Isho is known to have supplied gun(s) and ammo in this case.
• On September 5, 2012, Millard texted Smich about getting together and moving the BBQ back into the barn. Later that evening, they took a video of the incinerator hitched up to the Yukon in the Millardair hangar. With no questions from Smich about moving the BBQ together, one might speculate that they had recently used it for something (sinister or not). At the very least, it shows that Smich had a prior association with the incinerator, and that he knew very well what "BBQ" meant.
• On September 12, Millard and Isho discussed a 380 gun and Isho said it was possible he could get it by the weekend. This is 7 months after DM had already acquired a 380 from Isho. Then on September 22, Millard sent Noudga a photo (different from the February 2014 photo) of a gun resembling a Walther PPK. This is strong evidence of a second gun IMO.

This is but some of the evidence tying Smich to the murder tools (incinerator, gun, ammo, etc.) in this case. His prior association with these things, combined with the very close, intimate and trusting relationship between him and Millard, makes me pretty sure that he must have had some involvement in planning the murder of May 6, 2013. Now add in the following:

• His love of "search and destroy"
• His photos of the sausages and fireside furniture
• His violent messages to Millard a few weeks before Bosma ("they should have called me MERK...no fun and games til someone's hurt")
• His references to "fireworks" in the days before Bosma's murder

At this point, I'm almost convinced that he's aware of a murder about to take place. Now add in:

• His apparent willingness to help clean up after the murder
• His celebratory mood in the truck with Meneses
• His never going to the police
• His never showing any sign of panic until he knew the police were onto him
• His own testimony, which given the timing could have been formulated to fit the evidence, yet it still contains many holes and directly contradicts several other witnesses' testimony, many of whom did not have an incentive to lie about those facts in this case.

My personal verdict? Smich is guilty as charged.

This is great - HOWEVER, none of this proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. None of this is true, solid evidence. No DNA, no finger prints, no admission of guilt (to warrent 1st). You can't with a good conscious put someone away for life because a few texts about sausages, bbqs and fireworks that could mean anything - like a REAL BBQ (which was previously testified).

A few rap lyrics and previous knowledge of an incinerator dont prove someone is a murderer.

Trying to put myself in their shoes, I think everyone has done things they aren't proud of or that would make them look bad if spun in the wrong way. Reminds me of the final Sienfeld episode where all the people wronged in their past come back to testify against him. No one is perfect and any of our past indescretions can work against us if spun in the right way. Saying his rap lyrics are proof he's a murderer is akin to saying Beyonce is also: her new song on Lemonade talks about dismembering the other women Jay Z sleeps with, wearing their skin on her skin, their teeth like confetti.... truly gross but artistic and means nothing. None of this proves murder.

It would be a purely emotional decision to make MS guilty of first because there's simply no true evidence that he committed this. There's plenty of evidence on his co-accused DM and I'd like to see him put away for life!

 

[JuneBug67]

Thanks, I'm getting my friends and associates mixed up. The question is still curious though, who was doing the lying and what exactly were they lying about? Something to cover for DM, or some lie about MS? Neither of these guys were MS's friends, they were DM's friends. I seriously doubt either one would feel compelled to lie on behalf of Smich, but lie about him? Yeah, I can see that.

I think it's important to remember too that on a question of "what is true" the concept of lying can be a bit of a red herring. I have no reason to believe that BD was lying for example, but there are several other ways to conclude that regardless of that, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that MS owned a gun. For every issue that we consider lying could explain, we also have to think about how memory works (and doesn't), about communication and miscommunication, about the role of both corroborating and contradictory evidence, absent evidence etc.

 

[RandomName479]

Yes, yes he did. I wouldn't even know where to look in the timeline but did BD say he ever saw the gun? Or could this be a load of BS handed to him by MS, just to make MS feel all gangster and impress BD?

IIRC, BD did not testify that he had ever actually seen the gun. He testified that MS TOLD HIM that DM got the gun with zombie bullets that he (MS) wanted and that MS got a different one. Who knows? MS may have said that but been lying to be all gansta. MS may have said that and he actually had a second gun. BD may be misrembering. MOO

 

[Miranda16]

A couple of thoughts on the gun:
- Do we know how many total guns were acquired? Sounds like at least two in 2012, but one was presumably confiscated by LE after WM was found. It also sounds as if at least one gun was acquired for DM and one for MS (DM paying for all). If (one of) DM's gun(s) were used on WM, and there were 2 total, then the 'MS weapon' was used against TB. This fits BD's testimony that it was MS's gun. I still wonder if there were still 2 guns remaining at the time of the TB murder. Then MS would have gotten rid of both and that's why he requires amnesia about the guns. Also, why wouldn't DM replace the gun lost to LE after his father's death (otherwise only MS has a gun, unless DM took it back from MS at that point)
- If DM was trying to frame MS by tricking him into taking the gun from MH, how could he ensure that MS kept the gun (in MS's one gun scenario)? If I'm a scheming DM, how could I ensure that MS was actually caught with it? He couldn't know that MS would open the toolbox in front of someone, or that he would talk about the gun. He'd also have to assume that MS would try to get rid of it.

 

[JuneBug67]

For me personally, part of the reason it doesn't meet the mark is because I'm in text conversations every single day with most of my 7 kids and my husband. If I took a screen shot of the conversations with any of them, it would be SO easy to assume they mean something other than what they do. We might say something in text that we'd spoken face to face about but there's no real context in the text conversation and/or we don't elaborate at all so it could easily be misunderstood by someone on the outside looking in.

For example (and this is real text I sent hubby last night "you will forget all about crazy nights in the box". Then he replied "lol". No it doesn't mean anything creepy, but it sure could be interpreted in numerous ways, yes? And what if I were arrested for locking someone in a box? Everyone would be all "see!!! she's done it before!!"

I looked through all my text conversations and found loads of other examples that could be misread the exact same way. I just have to wonder if some aren't reading these texts and seeing what they think supports their theory or opinion, even if they're completely out of context. Or, maybe I'm just blind and can't see it. I guess it could be either way.

I read 'my 7 kids' and next thing I knew I was looking up at a cute paramedic asking me what year it was. I told him it was 2016 and I needed police because somebody was locked in a box.

 

[Ontario Mom]

I think it's important to remember too that on a question of "what is true" the concept of lying can be a bit of a red herring. I have no reason to believe that BD was lying for example, but there are several other ways to conclude that regardless of that, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that MS owned a gun. For every issue that we consider lying could explain, we also have to think about how memory works (and doesn't), about communication and miscommunication, about the role of both corroborating and contradictory evidence, absent evidence etc.

Unless MS whipped a gun out and actually showed it to BD, I suspect him telling BD that he got a gun was a load of gangsta-bravado horse snot. I'm sure BD probably believed it, however. I mean really, he's a small time drug dealer, no job, no car, no money, and pretty much relies on friends for everything (aka a lazy mooch). Where's he going to come up with the money to buy an illegal gun? Or, did Squishy just gift him one, out of the kindness of his heart?

 

[DeepWoodsOff]

Here is the video screenshot from the hangar. Is MS's hoodie red in it? Is it the same shade when he picks up MM a few hours later (this video is at approx 1:45am May 7th)

Interesting. If the hoodie was red, you would think that it would show as darker, like DM's pants. This looks much more like the grey hoodie he had on when he picked up MM, which would indicate he had already changed by the time they got to the hangar. Is it plausible that he fully changed prior to getting into the Yukon which is why there was no transfer of blood or GSR? MOO

 

[Webulls]

If MS was in the truck when TB was killed, he'd have blood transfer on him and would've hopped in the Yukon IMMEDIATELY after.
The words "bloody mess" have been pointed out everywhere. I can't see him changing in the field with a dead guy in the truck beside them but what do I know?

DM took off in the Yukon for 30 mins after arriving at the hanger. Since we know he was in the drivers seat of the Ram and a dead TB in the passenger seat, I have no doubt there would be blood all over DM. Regardless who pulled the trigger. That being said, I can't see DM leaving to go anywhere in the Yukon with blood all over him. So I would assumed he changed his clothes or cleaned up at this point.

I think people would look at him suspicious if you walked into a gas station covered in blood. JMO and all speculation of course.

No, he would not. Not if he shot Tim in the back from the rear seat. In fact, he likely wouldn't have had a single drop reach him. And, if he "hopped" into the Yukon, then most of the GSR would have remained in Tim's truck. Smich could have placed the gun back in his hoodie pocket (maybe this is why the red hoodie has disappeared?). Smich could have also been wearing gloves that he disposed, or he could have also wiped his hands clean before hopping into the Yukon.

The shattered window would be expected if the angle of the bullet was to the right.

Smich shot Tim Bosma, from the rear seat, just as they planned. Got out, and hopped into the Yukon to complete the mission.

 

[gremlingrrl]

.

The sausages in a pan and the wooden bench are for sitting and snacking while staring at the 54 barrels in the barn that had nothing to do with anything

But wasn't the accompanying text content re. the camping furniture along the lines of "for our fireside sitting/watching", followed by a photo of a frying sausage?

 

[RandomName479]

No, he would not. Not if he shot Tim in the back from the rear seat. In fact, he likely wouldn't have had a single drop reach him. And, if he "hopped" into the Yukon, then most of the GSR would have remained in Tim's truck. Smich could have placed the gun back in his hoodie pocket (maybe this is why the red hoodie has disappeared?). Smich could have also been wearing gloves that he disposed, or he could have also wiped his hands clean before hopping into the Yukon.

The shattered window would be expected if the angle of the bullet was to the right.

Smich shot Tim Bosma, from the rear seat, just as they planned. Got out, and hopped into the Yukon to complete the mission.

BBM - obviously you are stating YOUR OPINION as even the experts in this case could not determine where the shot came from.

 

[canadiangirl]

No, he would not. Not if he shot Tim in the back from the rear seat. In fact, he likely wouldn't have had a single drop reach him. And, if he "hopped" into the Yukon, then most of the GSR would have remained in Tim's truck. Smich could have placed the gun back in his hoodie pocket (maybe this is why the red hoodie has disappeared?). Smich could have also been wearing gloves that he disposed, or he could have also wiped his hands clean before hopping into the Yukon.

The shattered window would be expected if the angle of the bullet was to the right.

Smich shot Tim Bosma, from the rear seat, just as they planned. Got out, and hopped into the Yukon to complete the mission.

No single drop? Is that why 2 were found in the backseat of the Ram?

Your matter of fact post of what happened is scary to me.

 

[mimimic]

Andrew, COME ON. First, Waterloo is the airport, Millard's place of work. The series of texts is completely consistent with something like "Heading to work, need to make some calls about the barbecue this week". You know? This is about sending men to prison for 25 years. It all could be about the crime and the Eliminator, of course it could. But given the stakes, for some people that is a dangerous set of assumptions on a short series of words that can equally have a benign interpretation. Surely you can understand that?

Well, what if it weren't for having these texts? Everything else must be enough evidence and I suppose the meaning of them is unimportant to decipher, because there is enough on them without the hidden meaning behind any lingo. blood truck bones gun/s Again I ask why some are looking so closely only at MS - shouldn't DM also not be a given?

 

[Ontario Mom]

But wasn't the accompanying text content re. the camping furniture along the lines of "for our fireside sitting/watching", followed by a photo of a frying sausage?

I have no idea where that comes from. Can you elaborate please?