Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #16

[CJPRINCESS]

I love your tests

I'd rather do a test/experiment..including posting a pic of me, that I would never post anywhere lol! Just to save arguments on stuff

 

[JuneBug67]

Yes, they are both in question, I just wonder why DM is the only one looked at as surely guilty of first and not MS. Actually no in my quoted quote (?) I am referring to the importance of the texts. regardless, why DM a for sure and MS a maybe???

There are some people that think MS was the prime mover in this event, and the jury may ultimately agree. Who knows. Most here however seem to think that DM can't get out from under the evidence against him, and since he didn't even try it is natural to spend more time weighing Mark Smich's claim of innocence.

 

[gremlingrrl]

You added in your words of being for sitting and watching. Sitting and watching what and where?

Normally one sits on furniture, particularly when said furniture is a couch or stools. Typically, when one is sitting fireside, he/she is enjoying i.e. watching the fire.

?

 

[Errrr]

I don't see any other evidence of premeditation for murder other then texts that are being interpreted different by different people and some online searches that others did as well.

I see a lot AFTER the fact. Clean up. Destroying evidence for a different charge but as a whole, I'm not seeing it.

Not to be confused with, I'm on MS' side.

The physical problem as I see it with MS story, where he is trying to be elsewhere during the murder or restraint of Tim is this.
For MS not to be present in the Ram, he had to be dropped off at the corner within a minute of the start of the test drive (plausible?). He does not want it stated that he was in there long enough for anything to happen. Then the Ram has to make a three point turn( as MS said) in the dark, on a narrow road unfamiliar to the driver, in view of the Yukon which has the window rolled down (as MS said would be the case because of Pedo). Tim would be able to see no driver? Did MS get in the passenger side in view of Tim to keep up the ruse ?. MS has to be very vague on details he doesn't know.
The whole scenario rings false to me.

 

[CJPRINCESS]

For those who are referring to the fireside furniture and sausage texts, what do you interpret this to mean?

That DM likes sausages and MS was teasing him.

That the furniture was a picture tag by MS and he wanted to go steal it. A. Humphrey's tweet said "those were not made public to protect bystander's". Not too sure how else to read his tweet.

 

[Typhoo1961]

he could have also wiped his hands clean before hopping into the Yukon.

Blood does not wipe off of hands very easily. You literally need to wash it off with cold water and soap.
Why cold water? Cold water is best for removing blood.

 

[mimimic]

He didn't? I guess we're seeing different things for DM. If you'd like to point out why you feel DM is not guilty of first degree murder, feel free.

I think they are equally guilty, together, blood brothers, murderers, together, with their mission, planned and completed, together. If one had the boat, the other had the plank.

 

[canadiangirl]

Normally one sits on furniture, particularly when said furniture is a couch or stools. Typically, when one is sitting fireside, he/she is enjoying i.e. watching the fire.

?

Ok so if you're "sitting fireside", watching a fire, on "fireside furniture" with "sausages", (in a frying pan) is that done at an industrial hangar where the incineration took place? Seems completely out of place to me. JMO.

 

[CJPRINCESS]

Normally one sits on furniture, particularly when said furniture is a couch or stools. Typically, when one is sitting fireside, he/she is enjoying i.e. watching the fire.

?

Ok, I have not seen the "fireside furniture" pics yet. Did MS refer to them as "fireside" or is that what the media is calling it?

 

[hellkat2]

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.

Andrew you are breaking this down into small manageable pieces and I like it. Ever thought about becoming a lawyer?

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

AC described the words "fireside furniture" as a "caption". It was never clear to me whether the caption was part of the image or typed by MS with with picture. Either way, it was not "for our fireside sitting".

From my post up thread, Colin Butler says it was a caption on the image that read Fireside Furniture.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[mimimic]

That DM likes sausages and MS was teasing him.

That the furniture was a picture tag by MS and he wanted to go steal it. A. Humphrey's tweet said "those were not made public to protect bystander's". Not too sure how else to read his tweet.

? why did he say to protect bystander's?. as a side... i don't want to even say what I ( and a few others) believe the frying pan pics mean. If TB was drowned and MS sent a picture of an anchor...tying up kittens in a bag with a stone. I think it's clear. crystal

 

[hellkat2]

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

Why was it that they were told to disregard the two gun evidence??? I know someone explained it but...I can't find it anywhere.

 

[Ontario Mom]

I'm not following... I remembered and described it as being furniture for fireside sitting/watching. When I pulled up the tweet re the text, it was "fireside furniture". What else do you use "fireside furniture" for? It's furniture for sitting around a fire. What's the context change?

I think I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that Smich himself sent an accompanying text that said this furniture was for them sitting by/watching at the fire. I didn't realize you were referring to a caption on the pic itself.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

That DM likes sausages and MS was teasing him.

That the furniture was a picture tag by MS and he wanted to go steal it. A. Humphrey's tweet said "those were not made public to protect bystander's". Not too sure how else to read his tweet.

Humphreys didn't say they weren't made public ... He said that the text messages in Exhibit 144 weren't made public ... They were "read only" so that the reporters could report on, but the texts included info about non-involved persons, so couldn't be published.

Quite a lot of discussion about this in yesterday's thread, where it was posted that Adrian will be publishing those particular photos. When he does, they can be uploaded here.

 

[billandrew]

This is great - HOWEVER, none of this proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Actually it can, based on an individual's or a jury's assessment of it.

None of this is true, solid evidence. No DNA, no finger prints, no admission of guilt (to warrent 1st).

Direct evidence is not a prerequisite in determining guilt. Just because Smich's DNA or fingerprints weren't found at the scene doesn't mean that he gets off scot-free.

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.

Nobody is suggesting any of this. Nobody wants to unfairly incriminate a potentially innocent person. You're correct in that individual pieces of evidence don't prove anything, but that's not how it works. The evidence in this case has to be considered collectively and contextually. Unfortunately for Smich, the evidence considered in this way points to planning and deliberation on his part in the eyes of many people. You're free to disagree or form your opinion, but you should not dismiss individual pieces of evidence without considering them in the bigger picture.

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!

This is not a purely emotional decision. I have carefully weighed the evidence to the best of my ability and arrived at a conclusion based on the facts as I understand them. This is all that a reasonable and prudent person can be expected to do. I have no interest in declaring a potentially innocent person guilty. If there was any doubt in my mind about Smich's guilt I would say so.

 

[CJPRINCESS]

? why did he say to protect bystander's?. as a side... i don't want to even say what I ( and a few others) believe the frying pan pics mean. If TB was drowned and MS sent a picture of an anchor...tying up kittens in a bag with a stone. I think it's clear. crystal

I can only assume the furniture was someone's that MS wanted to steal. Can't see why else they'd want to "protect bystander's"?

 

[hellkat2]

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.

If someone is gonna bring a loaded gun to a robbery they are prepared to use it. If someone goes up to a teller in a bank and points a loaded gun at them and says give me all your money....they are prepared to use it if they need to. Is that premeditation by the letter of the law? If the teller gets murdered because she didn't cooperate or pass the money over fast enough???? DM&MS obtained a gun and ammo and brought it to a robbery and TB was murdered. That is all I need to know. IMO this is premeditation. Whether it be by the letter of the law or not. If I was on that jury.....they are both going down. Gone by by. Not a problem at all for me.

 

[Ontario Mom]

That DM likes sausages and MS was teasing him.

That the furniture was a picture tag by MS and he wanted to go steal it. A. Humphrey's tweet said "those were not made public to protect bystander's". Not too sure how else to read his tweet.

Is it possible this pic of the furniture was taken in someone's yard, and their house/yard may be identifiable so it was decided not to publish it for the public?

 

[canadiangirl]

If someone is gonna bring a loaded gun to a robbery they are prepared to use it. If someone goes up to a teller in a bank and points a loaded gun at them and says give me all your money....they are prepared to use it if they need to. Is that premeditation by the letter of the law? If the teller gets murdered because she didn't cooperate or pass the money over fast enough???? They purchased a gun and ammo and brought it to a robbery and somebody was murdered. That is all I need to know. IMO this is premeditation. Whether it be by the letter of the law or not. If I was on that jury.....they are both going down. Gone by by. Not problem at all for me.

Who brought the gun in this case? Did the other know about it?